Skip to main content

Full text of "Animal welfare improvement act of 1975 : hearing before the Subcommittee on the Environment of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session, on S. 1941 ... S. 2070 ... S. 2430 ... November 20, 1975"

See other formats


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



NMAl WELFARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1975 



■ HEARING 

P^P BBFORB THE 

^BCOMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 

OP THE 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

NMETY-FOURTH CONGRESS STANFORD 

FiBST sBsaioN LIBRARIES 

ON 

S. 1941 

TO INCREASE THE PROTECTION AFFORDED ANIMALS IN 

TRANSIT AND TO A88UBB TUB HUMANE TREATMENT OF 

ANIUALB, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

S. 2070 

TO AMEND THE ACT OF AUGUST 21. 196fl. AS AMENDED, TO 

A88UBB HUMANE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

S. 2430 

TO AMEND THE ACT OF AUOUST 24, 1966. AS AMENDED, TO 
ASSURE HUMANE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. 
AND FOR OTHER PIJ|)i<llj»lli m,^ 

NOVBMBB;^^. 1878 ^^1^ 



L 




Serial 

Printed for llieuHeof tliVc^uiiltee on CoflBnerce 



U.S. C(JVi..i.;iMth'T PRI 
WASHINGTON 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE 

WARREN tj. MAONUSON. Washinpon, C/rnln 



JOHN 0, PA8TORE, Rhode lalaod 
VANCE HARTKE, Indiana 
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan 
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada 
ROSSELL B. LONG, Loulaisntt 
FRANKE, MOSa, Utah 
ERNEST F. HOLLINOS, South CaroUi 
DANIEL E. INOUYE, Hawaii 
JOHN V. TUNNEY. Calllbnila 
ADLAl E. STEVENSON, Illinois 
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky 
JOHN A., DURKIN, Now Hampshiro 



JAMEBB. PEARSON, B 
ROBERT P. QRIFFIN, 
HOWARD H. BAKER,, 
TED STEVENS, Alaska 
1. OLENNBEALL, Jb 
LOWELL P. WEICKEI 
JAMES L, BUCKLEY. 



Maryland 
Vew York 



MiCHAXL FEBiecHUE, Chltf Coumel 

8. Linn SuTCLwra, Gmnol Coitiuil 

K*THi KoHPQN. Pro/rulonal Staff Mrml 

Michael B. BRanNLEe. PtafiulomU Staff ^ 

MALCOLU M. B, BtEHBETT, AfinOTflK Couiu. 

□EOTrREI Baeer, Minority ProfaiUmal Staff 



SuBCOMUiTTBi: ON Bnvtbonubnt 

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan. Oiofpman 
FRANK E, MOSS, DWh, Vice aafmiin 
JOHNO. PASTORE, Rhode Island LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jtt., Connecticut 

HUB8KLL B, LONd, Louisiana HOWARD H.. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee 

JOHN V. TUNNEY, Callforala JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York 

ADLAI E, STEVENSON, nllnola JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas 

JOHN A.. DOHKIN. New Hampshire 

(11) 



CONTENTS 



Opening atatemeut by Senator Wricker 

Text of bills: 

S. 1941 

S. 2070 

8. 2430 

Agency commente on S. 1941 : 

Department of Agriculture 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Department of Justice 

Agency comments on S. 2070 and S. 2430, Department of Agriculture, 

LIST OF WITNESSES 

Benkin, Priscilla G., assistant to the president, American Dog Owners As- 
sociation, Inc 

Bergman, William, executive vice president, Pet Industry Joint Advisory 

Council 

Prepared statement 

Blue, Joan, president, American Horse Protection Association 

Prepared statement 

Brisk, Fay, director, airport activities, Washington Humane Society 

Prepared statement _.. 

Chaloux, Dr. Pierre A., Assistant Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Serv- 
ices, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agri- 
culture 

Dantzler, Franz, director, fteld services and investigations, Humane So- 
ciety of the United States _ --_ 

Kent, Katherine A., Assistant Director, Bureau of Economics, Civil Aero- 
nautics Board; accompanied by Ellen B. Silberstein, attorney 

Kingman, Harry E., Jr., executive director. National Society for Medical 

Research- 

Prepared statement _ 

Morgan, Joe V., Jr., counsel, American Humane Association 

Prepared statement 

Phillips, Rutherford T., executive director, American Humane Aasocia- 

Prepared statement- 

Seybold, Leo, vice president tor Federal affairs. Air Transport Assoda- 

Prepared statement ._ 

SkuUy, Richard P., Director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration; accompanied by Curtis A. McKay, Chief, Air Carrier 
Division 

Stevens, Christine, secretary. Society tor Animal Protective Legislation.. 
Prepared statement : 

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS 

Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences, statement 

Andrews, Frederick N., vice president for research, Purdue University, 
letter of November 25, 1975 _ _ _ _ _ - 

Armstrong, Frederick C, Ph. D., statement 

Association ot American Railroads, statement. 

Brademan, Mary Eleanor, letter of November 24, 1975 

Castelllon, Alan, Ph. D chief, pharmacology section, research and de- 
velopment, Norwich Pnarmacal Co., letter ot December 1, 1975 

Free, Ann Cottrell, writer, statement _ 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



Griffin, Hon. Robert P., U.S. Senator from MichiRan, statement 42 

H&nnem&n, G. D., D.V.M., Chief, Veterinary Medicine Section, Civil 
Aeromedical Institute, Federal Aviation Administration, letter of August 
5, 1975 80 

Lueck, L. M., Ph. D., vice president, Quality Control and Government 

Regulations Division, letters of December 3, 1975 116-118 

Mmdusod, Hon. Warren G., U.S. Senator from Waahingtoa and Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, statement 41 

Piepho, Robert W., Ph. D., coordinator of clinical education, department of 
(finical education and services. College of Pharmacy, University of 
Nebraska Medical Center, letter of November 25, 1975 115 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



CONTENTS 



Opening atatement by Senator Weicker 

Text of bills : 

S. 1941 - - 

S. 2070 - 

S. 2430 

Agency comments on S. 1941 : 

Department of Agriculture. 

Federal Maritime Commission 

Department of Justice 

Agency comments on S. 2070 and 8. 2430, Department of Agriculture. 

LIST OF WITNESSES 

Benkin, Priscilla G., assistant to the president, American Dog Owners As- 
sociation, Inc 

Bergman, William, enecutive vice president, Pet Industry Joint Advisory 

Council - 

Prepared statement 

Blue, Joan, president, American Horse Protection Association — -- 

Prepared statement 

Brisk, Fay, director, airport activities, Washington Humane Society 

Prepared statement. 

Chftloux, Dr. Pierre A., Assistant Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Serv- 
ices, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agri- 
culture 

Dantzler, Franz, director, field services and investigations, Humane So- 
ciety of the United States 

Kent, Katherine A., Assistant Director, Bureau of Economics, Civil Aero- 
nautics Board; accompanied by Ellen B. Silberstein, attorney 

Kingman, Harry E., Jr., executive director. National Society for Medical 

Research 

Prepared statement 

Morgan, Joe V., Jr., counsel, American Humane Association _ 

Prepared statement 

Phillips, Rutherford T., executive director, American Humane Associa- 

Prepared statement _-_ 

Seybold, Leo, vice president for Federal affaira. Air Transport Associa- 

Prepared statement 

SkuUy, Richard P., Director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Admioi strati on ; accompanied by Curtis A. McKay, Chief, Air Carrier 

Division 

Stevens, Christine, secretary. Society for Animal Protective Legislation. _ 
Prepared statement : 

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS 

Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences, statement 

Andrews, Frederick N., vice president for research, Purdue University, 
letter of November 25, 1975 

Armstrong, Frederick C, Ph. D., statement -_ 

Association of American Railroads, statement - 

Brademan, Mary Eleanor, letter of November 24, 1975 - 

Castellion, Alan, Ph. D., chief, pharmacology section, researeh and de- 
velopment, Norwich Pharmacal Co., letter of December 1, 1975 

Free, Ann Cottrell, writer, statement _ _ 

(mi 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



Oriffin, Hon. Robert P., U.S. Senator from Michiffan, statement 42 

Haaneman, G. D., D.V.M., Chief, Veterinary Medicine Section, Civil 
Aeromedical Institute, Federal Aviation Adminiatration, letter of August 
5, 1975_ - 80 

Lueck, L. M., Ph. D., vice president, Quality Control and Government 

Regulations Division, letters of December 3, 1975 116-118 

MaRauson, Hon. Warren G., U.S. Senator from Washington and Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, statement 41 

Fiepho, Robert W., Ph. D., coordinator of clinical education, department of 
clinical education and services. College of Pharmacy, University of 
Nebraska Medical Center, letter of November 25, 1975 115 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



ANIMAL WELFARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1975 



THURSDAY, NOVTHBEB 20, 19TD 

U.S. Senate, 

COMMTTTEB ON CoBfMERCE, 
SuBCOMMriTEE ON EnVIRONMBNT, 

WaahiTigton, D.C. 
The subcommittee met at 1 :35p.m. in room 5110j Dirksen Sen&te 
OfiGce Building, Hon. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR WEICKER 

Senator Weicker. The hearings on S. 1941, S. 2070, and S. 2430 will 
come to order. 

Today the Environment Subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on 
l^slation intended to assure the humane treatment of animal in 
transit. The bills to be considered are S, 1941, introduced by myself 
and the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Magnuson ; S. 2070, introduced by Senator Dole ; and S. 2430, intro- 
duced by Senator Magnuson. 

These three bills contain needed amendments to improve the original 
Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, and the Animal 
Welfare Act Amendments of 1970, which established Federal stand- 
ards and enforcement of humane treatment of laboratory animals 
and pets. 

The legislation under consideration by the subcommittee today 
would plug inexplicable loopholes in the act exempting common car- 
riers and other intermediate handlers from provisions of present 
animal shipment regulations. The measures consitute comprehensive 
legislation to assure the proper care of animals and pets snipped by 
commercial airlines and air carriers. 

Provisions in these bills would not only bring airline and terminal 
facilities under regulations of the Animal Welfare Act but also re- 
move the partial exemptions extended to pet shops, the most active 
handlers and shippers of pets. Significantly, this legislation directs 
the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate strict standards for the 
care of animals in transit, including standards for containers, feed- 
water, ventilation, temperature, and veterinary care. 

I do not believe we need to elaborate further on the problems and 
tragedies involved in the transportation of animals by air. Docu- 
mentation through congressional hearings, articles in the media, and 
the efforts of animal welfare associations have been all too descrip- 
tive of the urgent need for corrective legislation in this area. My own 
personal observation mi a tour of air freight facilities at Washington 
National Airport 3 years ago revealed a num'ber of animals in flimsy 

SMff membea assigned bo tbia bearing : Kathl Kot^Mi. 



(1) 



Digitized byGoOglC 



crates and afforded no better treatment than regular air freight. Ap- 
parentlv, the situation has not improved at this facility or at those 
across the country. 

It is my hope that, with both bodies proceeding with positive com- 
mittee consideration on bills amending the Animal Welfare Act, the 
Congress will speedily enact this imperative animal welfare legisla- 
tion. I might interject a note of personal satisfaction that the Con- 
gress is finally exercising legislative leadership to assure the humane 
treatment of animals transported in air commerce. I would also like to 
express my thanks to the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator Magnuson, for his support of animal welfare 
legislation and for his efforts to assure the humane treatment of 
animals. 

It is my understanding that the House Agriculture Livestock and 
Grains Subcommittee after a markup session last Wednesday, the 12th, 
voted 7-1 to report a companion measure, H.R. 5808, amending the 
Anmal Welfare Act, to the full Agriculture Committee. The com- 
mittee has indicated that it will proceed to mark up the bill some time 
after the House returns from the Thanksgiving recess. 

[The bills and agency comments follow :] 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



S. 1941 



IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES 

June 13 (logislativedny, Jc™eG),1975 

Mr. WEiCKim (for himself and Mr. Maqndsoh) introduced tlie following bill ; 

which was read twice nnd referred to tlie ComiuiUee on Commerce 



A BILL 

To increase the protection afforded animals in transit and to 
assure the httmane treatment of aniniab, and for other purposes. 

Q 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Beprescnta- 

2 lives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That this Act may be cited as the "Animal Welfare Improve- 
^ 4 mentActof 197^. 

5-- '■ Sec. 2. The Act of August 24, 1966, a-s amended (7 
''•^ U.S.C 2131 et seq.) is amended by inserting before the first 

7 section thereof: "That this Act may be cited as die Animal 

8 Welfare Act". O 

9 Sec. 3. Section 1 of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended 
10 (7 TJ.S.O. 2131) is amended by inserting after "treatment 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



2 

1 of such animals by" and before "persona or organistatiou" the 

2 term "common carriers or by". 

3 Sec. 4. Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended 

4 (7IT.S.C.2132) isamended— 

5 (1) by striking out subsections (e) and (d) there- 
G of and inserting in lieu the following : 

7 "(c) The term 'commerce' means trade, traffic, trans- 

8 portation, commonicatioiii or exchange — 

9 " (1) between a place in a State and any place out- 

10 side of such State ; or 

11 "(2) which affects trade, traffic, transportation, 

12 commuication, or exchange described in paragraph (1) 

13 of tliis subsection. 

14 "(d) The term 'State' means a State of tlie United 
35 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

16 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Quam, American Samoa, or 

17 any other territory or possession of the United States;". 

18 (2) by amending subsection (e) thereof by striking 

19 out the tenn "affecting commerce" and inserting' in lieu 

20 thereof "in commerce"; ■>^, 

21 (3) by amending subsection (f) thereof (A) by 

22 striking out the term "affecting conamerce" and inserting 

23 in lieu thereof "in commerce"; (B) by striking out 

24 "except as a common carrier,"; and (C) by striking 

25 out, "but such term excludes any pet store except such 



Digitized byGoOglC 



3 

1 store which sells any animal hi a research facility, an 

2 exhibitor, or a dealer," and inserting in lieu thereof ". 

3 The term does not include a hobby breeder of dogs or 

4 cats, as defined by the Secretary ;" ; 

5 (4) by amending subsection (g) thereof (A) by 

6 striking out "or as a pet; but such term excludes" and 

7 inserting in lieu thereof the following: "or as a pet. The 

8 term includes, solely with respect to any use in con- 

9 nection with a retail pet store or with a zoo, any live or 

10 dead bird. The term does not include"; and (B) by 

11 striking out "and" at the end thereof; 

12 (5) by amending subsection (h) thereof by striking 

13 out ", which were purchased in commerce or tfie in- 

14 tended distribution of which affects commerce, or will 

15 affect commerce," and inserting in lieu thereof "in com- 

16 merce" ; and 

IT (6) by adding at the end thereof the following 

18 two new subsections: 

19 " (i) The term 'intemiediat« handler' means any person 

20 who b engaged in any business in commerce which involves 

21 in whole or in part, receiving or maintaining custody of ani- 

22 mala in connection with their transportation in commerce, 

23 except that the term does not include a deder, a research 

24 facility, an exhibitor, a hobby breeder of dogs or cats, an 

25 operator of an auction sale, a common carrier, a person 



Digitized byGoOglC 



4 

1 exempted from the deBnition of 'research facility' by regida- 

2 tion, or a person excluded from the dcfiiution of 'exhibitor'; 

3 and 

4 " (j) The term 'common carrier' means the owner or 

5 operator of any airline, raihoad, shipping line, or other enter- 

6 prise, which is engaged in, or authorized to engage in, the 

7 business of transporting any animals for hire or any person 

8 designated as such by the Secretary of Transportation, the 

9 Iutei"state Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics 

10 Board, or the Federal Maritime Commission.". 

11 Sec. 5. Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act, as 
1'^ amended (7 U.S.O. 2133} is amended by insertmg after 
13 "his facilities" and before "comply" in the first proviso 
1^ thereof the following: ", including any terminal facilities 
l'"* used by such person,". 

16 Sec. 6. Sections 4, 11, and 12 of the Animal Welfare 

1'^ Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2134, 2141, and 2142) are 

18 amended by striking out "aflecting commerce" and inserting 

19 In lieu thereof "in commerce". 

20 Sec. 7. Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act, as 

21 amended (7 U.S.C. 2136) is amended by inserting after 

22 "research facility" and before "and every" the following: 

23 "every mtermediate handler, every common carrier,". 

24 Sec. 8. Section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act, as amend- 
85 «d (7 U.S.C. 2139) , is amended by inserting after "dealer,", 



Digitized byGoOglC 



5 

1 the first time the term appears, the foUowing: "an jntenaedi- 

2 ate iLandler, a common carrier", and the second tjnje the term 

3 appears, the ft^owing: "intermediate handler, common cw- 

4 rier,". 

5 Sec. 9. Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act, as 

6 amended (7 U.S.C. 2140), is amended to read as follows: 

7 "Sec. 10. Dealers, research facilities, intermediate haa- 

8 'dlers, common carriers, and exhibitors shall make and 

9 retail for such reasonable period of time and on snch forms 

10 as the Secretary may prescribe sndi records with respect to 

11 the purchase, sale, transportation, identification, receiving, 

12 handling, deliTering, and previous ownership of animals as 

13 the Secretary may prescribe. Such records shall he made 

14 available by the Secretary to interested persons at aU rea- 
ls sonahle . times, for purposes of examination and copying.". 
16 Sbo. 10. Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act, as 
V unended (7U.S.0.2143),i8am^ded— 

18 ( 1 ) by amending the title thereof to read as follows ; 

19 "hUHAKB 8TANDABD8 FOB animals"; 

^ (2) by designating the provisions (hereof as sub- 

21 section " (a) " of such section by inserting " (a) " imme- 

^ diately before the first sentence thereof; 

23 (3) by amending the second sentence of subsection 

24 (a) thffl-eof, as dengnated by this section, by insertmg 
^ after "Such, standnrds" and before "shall include" die 



Digitized byGoOglC 



I loUowing: "shall apply with respect to the facilities of 

3 any pprson licejised under this Actaud with. respect tP 
.a any terminal facilities used by a coaunoD carrier subject 

4 to this Act and"; 

5 (4} by adding the following new subsection at the 

6 end of subsection (a) thereof, as designated by this 
.7 section: 

8 "(b) The Secretary shall promulgate standards to gov- 

9 em the transportation in commerce, and the handling, care, 
10 and treatment in connection therewith, of any animals as to 

II which such transportation is purchased or ordered by a 

12 dealer, a research facihty, an owner of a pet, an exhibitor, 

13 an operator of an auction sale, a department, agency, or 

14 instrumentality of the Federal Government or any State or 

15 local government, or any other person. Such standards shall 
Jfi apply to all air carriers and other common carriers and to 
^'^ intermediate hasdlerB, with respect to the transportation in 

18 oommerce of flnimals. Such standards shall include, but need 

19 not be limited to, Tninrmnin requirements with respect to 

20 containers, feed, water, rest, ventilation, temperature, air 

21 pressure, handling, veterinary care, and other factors deter- 

22 mined by the Secretary to be relevant to assuring the hu- 

23 mane treatment of animals in the course of their transporta- 

24 tion in commerce. Such standards may prohibit the trans- 
2^. portalion in commerce «f dogs, cats, and other designated 



Digitized byGoOglC 



7 

1 uiimals l^t are less thaa «igbt weeks of age (or has thaji 

2 Buoh other Age as the Secretary may predoribe), and' they 

3 may prohibit such tnmsportatioD unless the animal iiivolTed 
■i is accoinpaiued by a certificate issued by a' licensed veteri- 

5 oaiiui certifying that such animal as delivered to as inter- 

6 mediate handler or common earner is sound,' healthy, and in 

7 such condition that it can reasonably be expected to with- 

8 'atani the rigors of the intended transportation without 

9 adverse consequence,". 

10 S^C. 11, Section 15 of the Animal Welfare Act, as 

11 funended (7 U.S.C. 2145) is amended by adding the follow- 

12 ing new subsection at the end thereof ; . 

13 "(c) In addition to other ap[diG&ble' requirements, the 
H Secretary shall consult and cooperate with the Secretary 

15 of Transportation with respect to die estahlishment and eh- 

16 foroement of humane standards for animals in the course of 

17 their transportation in commerce and in terminal facilities 

18 prior to *ni after such transportation. And no standard 

19 with respect to transportation by air shall become effective 

20 without the approval of such Secretary with respect to 

21 ffi^t safety. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized 

22 uid directed to take such steps as are necessary to assist the 

23 Sear^ary in any iniatter relating to the transportation of 

24 ftnimnla in commerce. The Interstate' Commerce Gommissioh, 

25 the Oivil Aeronautics Board, and the Federal Maritime 



Digitized byGoOglC 



10 



8 

^},r iConuiusgion, to the extent of their respective lawful aothor- 
2, Ities, bIbi]1 take gach actioo as is appropriate to implement, 

3 enforce, or reinforce any' determination 1)y>^ die Secretary 

4 with respect to, « person «tbject to r^;nlati<ni by it, includ- 
5' ing, bat not limited to, Buspension of operating licenses.". 

6 : 9bg. 12. Section 16(a) ot the AnimtJ Welfare Act, as 

7 amended (7TJ.S.0,.2U6) is amended— ■ 

8 (1) by inserting "intennediate handler, common 

9 carrier," m the first sentence tberetrf t^ter the tenn 

10 "exhibitor", eadi time snch term appears in sach 

11 sentence; 

12 (2) by striking out "ot" before " (4)" in the third 

13 sentence thereof; 

* ■ . (3) by inserting before tiie period at the end of the 

■■■ ' third sentence thereof the following: ", or (5) sneh 
') ~ amiiml is held by an intermediate handler or by a 

common carrier" ; and 
. ' I ( (4) .by addmg the following new sentence at the 
^>^::'. ' end thereof: "It shall be the doty of United States 
*9 attorneys to prosecute all criminal violations of this Act 

'^ ' ■ reported by the Secretary and to initiate dvil a(^ons to 
Tecover all cavil penalties assessed, and reported, by the 
1 Secretaiy, or wluch come to th^ notice or knowledge 
^1 ', ■ by other means,". • 



VJ- 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 Sec. 13. Section 19 of die Animal Welfare Act, as 

2 amended (7 U.S.C. 2149), is amended— 

3 (1) by inserting after "exhibitor,", each time the 

4 term appears, the following: "intermediate handler, 

5 common carrier,"; and 

6 (2) by adding die following new subsection at the 

7 end thereof: 

8 "(d) Any dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, com- 

9 mon carrier, or operator of an auction sale subject to this 

10 Act who is determined by the Secretary, after notice and an 

11 opportunity for a hearing, to have knowingly committed an 

12 act which is in violation of a provision of this Act or of a 

13 standard prescribed pursuant to this Act, shall be liable to 

14 the United States tor a civil penalty. The amount of such 

15 penalty shall be not more than $2,000 for each violation, and 

16 if any such violation is a continuing one, each day of violation 
^"^ constitutes a separate offense. The amount of any such 
1^ penalty shall be assessed by the Secretary by written notice. 

19 In determining the amount of such penalty, the Secretary 

20 gball take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and 

21 gravity of the violation committed and, with respect to the 

22 person found to have committed such violation, the degree 

23 of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, 
21 effect on ability to continne to do business, and such other 
25 matters as justice may require.". 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



S. 2070 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JrLT 9 (legislative day, July 7), 1975 
Ur. Dole introduced the following bill; whidi was read twice and referred 
jointly by unanimous consent to the Committees on Agriculture and For- 
estry and Comment ' 



A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 24, 1966, as amended, to assure 

biuaane treatmeut of certain aniioals, and for ot)ier purposes. 
3 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Jtepreienta- 

2 twes of the Uniied States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That ti»s Act may be cited fls tlje ''Aiiiaiai WeMare Act 

4 Ameodmenls of J975". 

5 Sec. 2. The Federal Laheratory Aniroal Welfare Apt 

6 <rf Ai^ust 24, 1966 (80 Stat. 350, as acoended hy th-e 

7 Aniwal Welfare Act of 1970, 64 Slat. 1560; 7 17.8.0/ 

8 2131-2155) is hereby further amended by, adding the fi^- 

9 lowing at the end i^ the first seetii»i tjbbereof: "It is alu; 

10 essential for humane reasons to prt^bit centaie aniiual figh^ 

11 ing veutureB. The Congress berehy fiads (tat ^qimals ani 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 activities which are regiiltLted imdor this Act are cither in 

2 interstate or foreign commerce or substantially aSect such 

3 commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of 
1 animals and activities as provided in this Act is necessary to 

5 prevent and eliminate hurdens upon such commerce, to 

6 efifectively regulate such commerce, and to carry out the 

7 objectives of this Act.". 

.8 Sbo. 3. Section 2 of such Act is amended by deleting 

9 paragraph (d) defining "affecting cotmnerce"; and by 

10 amending paragraph (c) defining "commerce" by chang- 

11 ing tlie last clause to read "or within any State, territory, or 

12 possession, or the District of Columbia, or the Common- 

13 wealth of Rierto Eico.". 

14 8eo. 4. Such Act is further amended by deleting the 

15 term "afiecting commerce," from paragraphs (c) and (f) 

16 of section 2 and sections 4, 11, and 12, wherever the quoted 

17 t^m appears therein, and by substituting therefor the term 

18 "in commerce,"; and by deleting, from paragraph (h) of 

19 section 2, the phrase "or the intended distribution of which 

20 affects commerce, or will affect commerce," and substituting 

21 therefor the phrase "or are intended to be moved in 
22 " commerce,". 

23 Sec. 5. Section 2 of such Act is further amended by 

24 adding thereto two new paragraphs to read : 

25 " (i) The term 'intermediate baiidler' means any per- 



DigilizedbyGoOglC 



1 son {otlier than a dealer, research facility, exhihitor, any 

2 person excluded from the definition of a dealer, research 

3 facility,' or exhibitor, an operator of an auction sale, or a 
i carrier, who is engaged in any business in which he receives 

5 custody of animals in connection wiHi tbeir transportation 

6 in commerce. 

7 " (j) The term 'carrier' means the operator of any ajr- 

8 line, railroad, shipping line, or other enterprise, which is 

9 engaged in the business of transporting any ani m a ls for 

10 hire.". 

11 'Sec. 6. Section 6 of such Act is amended by inserting 

12 after the term "research facility" a comma and the term 

13 "every intermediate handler, every carrier,". 

14 ' Sec. 7. Section 9 of snch Act is amended by inserting 

15 after the term ""Section 12 of this Act," the term "or an 

16 intermediate handler, or a carrier,", and by deleting the term 
-l*^ "or an Operator of an auction sale as well as of such person" 

18 at'tiie 6nd of section 9 and substituting therefor the following 

19 tenn: "operator of an auction sale, intermediate handler, or 

20 carrier, as well as of such person.". 

21 Sec. 8". Section 10 of such Act is amended by deleting 

22 tlie phrase ''upon forms supplied by the Secretary" from the 

23 first sentence and by adding after the second sentence a new 

24 sentence to read as follows : 

25 " "Sec. 10. Intermediate handlers and carriers shall make 



Digitized byGoOglC 



1 and retain for such reasonable period of time as the Secretaly 

2 may prescribe, auch records wifli respect to the transporta- 

3 tion, receiving, handhng, and delivering of animals as ttie 
- i '■- Secietary may prescribe.". 

5 ~ Sec. 9. Section 13 of snch Act is amended by designat- 

6 ing die provisions thereof as paragraph (a) and by adding, 
■ 7 flftcr the second sentence therein, a new sentence to read: 

.8 "The Becretary shall also promulgate standards to govern 

9 the transportation in commerce, and (he handling, care, and 

10 treatment in connection therewidi, by mtermediate handlen, 

11 air carriers, or other carriers, of animals consigned by any 

12 dealer, research, facility, e^ibitor, operatw of an auction 

13 gale, or other person, or any department, agency, or instrn- 
24 menfaUty of the ITnited States, for transportation in ctnn- 

15 merce. Hie standards shall inclade such requirements with 

16 respect to containers, feed, water, rest, ventilBtiffiD, tempera- 

17 tare, handling, adequate veterinary care, and other factors as 
•18 the Secretary determines are relevant in assuring humane 

19 treatment of animals in the course of their transportation in 

20 commerce. ". 

Si' Sec. 10. Seotirai 13 of such Act is farther amended l^ 

22 fldifing at the end there<rf new paragraplB! (b) , (c), and 

23 (d) to read: 

24 " (b) No dogs or cats, or additional kinds ot classes of 
si animals designated by regnl»ti«» *rf the Secretary, ^all be 



Digitized byGoOglC 



16 



5 

X delivered by any dealer, research facility, esiiibitor, operator 

2 of an aaction sale, or department, agency, or instnimentali^ 

3 of the United States, to any intermediate handler or carrier 

4 for transportation in commerce, or received by any such han- 

5 dler or carrier for such transportation from any such person, 

6 department, agency, or instnimentality unless accompanied 

7 by a certificate issued by a veterinarian licensed to practice 
g veterinary medicine, certifying that he inspected the aninml 
9 or animals on a specified date, which shall not be more than 

10 ten days before such delivery, acd, when so inspected, the 

11 animal or animals were Bound and healthy. Such certificates 
13 received by the Intermediate handlers and the carriers shall 

13 be retained by them, as provided by regulalionB of the Sec- 

14 retary in accordance with section 10 of this Act. 

15 "(c) No dogs or cats, or additional kinds or classes of 

16 animals designated by regulation of the Secretary, shall be 

17 delivered by any person to any iut«rmediafe handler or car- 

18 rier for transportetJon in commerce except to registered rc- 

19 search facilities if they are less than eight weeks of age, or 

20 such other age as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe. 

21 The Secretary shall designate additional kinds and classes 

22 of animals and may prescribe ages different than eight weeks 

23 for particular kinds or classes of doga, cats, or designated anl- 

24 mals, for the purposes of this section, when he determines 

25 tbflt such action is necessary or adequate to assure their 



Digitized byGoOglC 



1 hiimaDe treatment in connection with their tranBportation in 

2 commerce. 

3 "(d) No intermediate handler or carrier Involved in 

4 the transportation of any animal in commerce shall partici- 

5 pate in any arrangement or engage in any practice under 
Q which the cost of such animal or the cost of the transportar 
7 tion of such animal is to be paid and collected upon delivery 
g of the animal to the consignee, unless the consigner guaran- 
g tees in writing the payment of transportation charges, includ- 

10 ing, where necessary, both the return transportation charges 

11 and an amount sufficient to reimburse the carrier for all out- 

12 (rf-pocket expenses incurred for the care, feeding, and storage 

13 of any live creatures.". 

14 Sbo. 11. Section 15 of such Act is amended by inserting 

15 aAer the term "exhibition" in the first sentence, a conuna 

16 and the term "or administration of stetutes regulating the 

17 transportation in commerce or haadlmg in connection tbere- 

18 with of any animals", and by adding the following at the end 

19 of the sentence: "Before promulgating any standard govem- 

20 ing the air transportation and handling in connection there^ 

21 wth, of animials, the Secretory shall consult with the Secre- 

22 tary of Transportation who shall have the authority to 

23 disapprove any such standard if he notifies the Secretary, 

24 within thirty days after such consultation, tiiat changes in its 
23 prorisions are necessary in tiie int^est of flight safety.". 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 Sec. 13. Fnragraph (a) of sectioii 16 of such Act is 

2 amended by inserting the term "intermediate handler, ear- 

3 rier," in the first sentence after the term "exhibitor," eaeh 

4 time the latter tenn appears In the sent^ice; by inserting 

5 before the period in the second sentence, a comma and die 

6 term "or (5) sudi animal is held by an intermediate handler 

7 or a carrier" and by deleting the term "or" before the term 

8 " (4) " in the tlurd sentence. 

9 Sec. IB. Section 19 of such Act is amended by adding 

10 at the end (hereof the following new paragraph (d) : 

11 "(d) Any intermediate handler or carrier that violates - 

12 any provision of section 13 of this Act or any standard 

13 promulgated theremider may be assessed a civil penalty by 

14 the Secretary of not more than #1,000 for each such vioU- 

15 tion. Each violation shall he a separate offense. No penalty 
13 shall be assessed unless such person is given notice and 
l*^ opportunity for a hearing wdth respect to flie alleged \aola- 

18 ^on, and the order of the Secretary assessing a penalty 

19 shall be final and conclusive unless the affected pereon files 

20 an appeal from the Secretary's order with the appropriate 

21 United States court of appeals. Such court shall have exr 

22 . elusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set amde, suspend (in whole 

23 or in part) , or to determine the validity of the Secretary's 
2* order, and tlie provisions of sections 2341, 2343 throu^^ 
2^ 2350 of title 28, ITnited States Code, shall be apprtcftblo 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 to such appeals and orders. Any such civil peualty may be 

2 - compromised by the Secretary. Upon any ffulm-e to pay the 

3 penalty assessed by a final order nnder this section, the 
i Secretary shall request the Attorney Gleneral to institute a, 

5 civil action in a district court of the United States or other 

6 United States court ior any district in wbidi su<di person 

7 is found or resides or transmits business, to collect the pen- 
S ally, and such court shell have jurisdiction to bear and 

'& decide any snch action.". 

10 ' ' Sbc. 14. Section 24 of such Act is amended by insert- 
11' ihg a cOmioa and the term "intermediate handlers, and car- 
la' riers" aiker the tenn "dealere" in the third sentence; and by 
13 adding a comma and the following proTislons before tho 
1^ period at the end of the first sentence: "escept that the rega- 
in lations rtikfing to intermediate handlers and carriers shall 
^^ be prescribed no later -than nine m(Hith8 from the date of 
IT enacttneht of the 'Aiiiuial Welfare Act Amendments of 
18 1375'.". 

^ SiBC. 15. Section 25 of sadi Act is amended by inserting 

^ after 'subsection (3) the foUomng subsection: 

^ "(4) recommendations and conclusions concera- 

^ ing the tuirraft environment as it relates to the carriage 

^ of live animals in air transportation." 

^ Seo. 16. (a) Siich Act is amended by adding at the 

^ end thereof the following new section: 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



20 





1 "Skc. 26. {a) It sliall be unlawful for any peraou to 

2 knowingly sponsor, or exhibit an animal in any animal fight- 

3 ing venture to which any animal was moved in interstate or 

4 foreign commerce. 

6 "(b) It shall be anlawfnl tor any person to sell, buy, 

6 transport, or deliver to another person or receive from an- 

7 other person for purposes of transportation, in interstate or 
' 8 foreign commerce any dog or other animal for purposes of 

d having the dog or other animal participate in an animal 

10 figjittng venture. 

XI " (c) It shall be onlawful for any perscm to knowingly 

13 use the njail s«Tice of the United States Postid Service or 

13 any interstate instnmientalily for purposes of promoting or 

14 in nify bthei* manner furthering no auhnal fighting ventiu«. 
is Section 3001(a) of title 39, United States Code, is wnended 
is by adding immediately after the words 'tide 18' a oomma 

17 and the words 'or section 26 of the Federal jAborotory 

18 Animal WeMftre Act'. 

j^g "(i) Any perttOD who violates gobsectaoD (a), (b), 

20 01 (c) shall be fined not more dian $5,000 or imprisoned 

21 tor not more than one year, or both, for each sacb Eolation. 
ffl " (e) The Secretary or any other person authorized by 

23 him shall make such investigations as the Secretary deems 

24 necessary to determine whether any person has violated or 

25 is violating any provision of this section, and the Secretal^ 



dbvGoOgk 



21 



10 

,1 nmy obtam the aseisbmce of the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 

2 tjon, the Departijient of the TreB«ury, or otber law en^rce- 

3 meat ageocies (rf the United States, and State and local 

4 govenmiental agencies, In the conduct <rf such investigations, 

5 Under cooperative agreements with such agencies. A warrant 

6 to sterch for aud Seize any animal which there is probable 

7 cause to believe was involved In any violation of this section 

8 may be issued by auy judge of the United States or of a State 

9 court of record or by a Uulted States coDUUissioner witiiin 

10 the district wherem the animal sought is located. Any United 

11 States manhal or any person authoriited under this section 

12 to coqduct Investigations may apply for and execute any such 

13 warraotr and any animal seised under such a warrant shall 

14 be ^d by thd United States marshal or other authorized 
16 person pMiding dispositlou thereof by the court in accordance 

16 with this paragraph (e) . Necessary care Including veterinary 

17 treatment shall be provided while the animalH are so held in 

18 custody. Any animal involved m any violation of this section 
Ig sh^ be hable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the 

20 United Stat^ at any time on complaint filed in any United 

21 States district court or other court of the United States for 

22 any jurisdiction in whidi the animal is found and upon a 

23 judgment of forfeiture shall be disposed of by sale for lawful 

24 purposes or by other humane means, as the court may direct. 

25 Costs Incurred by the United States for care of animals seized 



Digitized byGoOglC 



u 

and fiH-feited under this section shall be recoverable from the 
owner of Ae animnls if he appeal's in such forfeiture proceed- 
ing or in a separate civil action brought in the jurisdiction in 
which the owner is found, resides, or transacts business. 

"(f) For purposes (rf this section — 

" ( I ) tlie term 'animal fighting venture' means any 

event which involves a fight between at least two animals 

and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or 

entertainment ; 

"(2) the term 'interstate or foreign 



"(A) any movement between any place in a 
State to any place in another State or between places 
in the same State through another Stat«; or 

" (B) any movement from a foreign country 
into any State, 
"(3) the term 'interstate instrumentality' means 

telegraph, telephone, radio, or television operating in 

interstate or foreign commerc* ; 

" (4) the term 'State' means any State of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the 

United States; 

" (5) the term 'animal' means any live dog or other 

mammal, except man ; and _^ _ 



j'. . "(6) 4lie comduct by auiy person of any wstivily 

2 proliibited by this eectian ehall not render sudi persmi 

3 sidtjeet lo the othet- seotioBS of this Act as a .dealev, 

4 exhibitoft or otherwise, 

5 " (g) The provisions of this Act shall Aot supersede dr 
Q otherwise invalidate any sagii 3tate, local, or munidpal leg- 
7 j^don or ordinance releting to animal %hting ventures eX- 
g cept in case of a direict, and irreconcilable, conflict between 
9 tmy requirements thereunder and this Act.orany rule, rego- 

10 lationjorstandardiiereHnder/'. 

11 Sbc. 17. If any provision of this Act or of the amend- 

12 meote m»de hereby or, the. application thereof to any person 

13 or oirouinstanceB is h^d invalid, the validi^ of the remainder 

14 of the Act tmd tike rembiiung amendments and ,of the applica- 

15 tioQ of such proviai<9 to Othier persons and circumstanced 

16 shall not be affected thereby. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



I CONGRESS 



S.2430 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 



} (legislative daj, Sepizubeb 11), 19T5 
Hr. Uaoncsom introduced the following Inll; which ww read twice and n- 
terred to the Committee on Commerce 



A BILL 

To nniend tlic Act of August 24, 1966, as anicoded, lo assure 
limiiane treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Sciiatc and House of Represcnta- 

2 tives of the United Slates of America tn Congress assembled, 

3 That tliis Act may I)c cited na tlie "Animal Welfare Act 

4 Amendments of 1975". 

5 Sec. 2. The Federal Ijalioratory Animnl Welfare Act 
G of Ansiiat 24, 19(ilJ (80 Shit. 350, as amended by tlie 

7 Animal Welfare Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1560; 7 U.S.C. 

8 21.^1-2155) is lierchy further amended hy adding the fol- 

9 lowing at tlie end of the first section tliereof: "It is also 

10 essential for humane reasons to prohihit certain animal fight- 

11 ing voutiires, "The Congress hereby finds that animals and 

I 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 aotivtties which are regulated under this Act are either in 

2 interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such 

3 commerce or the free flow thereof, and Aat regulation of 

4 animals and activities as provided in dm Act is necessary to 

5 prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce, to 

6 cRectK'ely rogukte such commerce, and to carry out the 

7 objectives of this Act.". 

8 Sec. 3. Section 2 of such Act is nnicndod by deleting 

9 pnrflgniph (d) defining "affecting commerce"; and by 

10 amending paragraph (.c) deliuing. "coimnercc" liy cbang- 

11 ing the last clause to read "or within any Htnte, territory, or 

12 possesion, or the District of Golunibin, or the Common- 

13 wealth of Puerto Rico.". 

14 Set. 4. Such Act is further amended by deleting the 

15 term "affecting commerce," from parngraphs (e) and (f) 
1*^ of section 2 and sections 4, 11, and 12, wherever the (pioted 
1"^ term appears therein, and by substituting therefor the term 

18 "in commerce,"; and by deleting, from paragraph (h) of 

19 section 2, the phrase "or the intended distribution of which 

20 affects commerce, or will affect commerce," and sulrstituting 

21 therefor the phmso "or are intended to be moved in 

22 commerce,". 

S-t Set. 5. Section 2 of such Act is further amended by 

24 adding thereto two new paragraphs to read: 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 "(1) The term 'intermediate lumdler' means any per- 

.2 son (other than & dealer, research facility, exhibitor, any 

3 person cxchided irom the definition of a dealer, research 

4 facility, or exhibitor; an operator of an auction sale, or n 

5 carrier, who is engaged in any business in which he receives 

6 custody of animals in connection witii their transportation 

7 in commerce. 

8 . "(j) The term 'carrier' means the operator of any air- 

9 line, railroad, shipping line, or other enterprise, which is 

10 engaged m the business of transporting any animals for hire.". 

11 Sec. 6. Section 6 of such Act is amended by inserting 

12 after the term "research facility", a comma and the term 

13 "every intermediate handler, every carrier,", 

1* Hkc. 7. Section 9 of such Act is amended by inserting 

^5 after the term "Section 1 2 of this Act,", the' term "or an 

^6 intermediate handler, or a carrier,", and by deleting the term 

1*^ "or an operator of an auction sale as well as of such person" 

18 nt the end of section 9 and substituting therefor the following 

19 term: "operator of an auction sale, mtermediale handler, or 

20 carrier, as well as of such person.". 

21 Sec. 8. Section 10 of such Act is amended by deleting 

22 the phrase "upon forms supplied by the Secretary" from the 
2.'t first sentence and hy adding after the second sentence a new 
24 sentence to read as follows: 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 "Sec. 10. Intermediate handlers and carriers shall make 

2 and retain for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary 

3 may preseribe, such records with respect to the trsnsporta- 

4 tion, receiving, h&ndling, and delivering of animals as the 

5 Secretary may prescribe.". 

G Src. 9. Section 13 of such Act is amended by designat- 

7 ing tlic provisions thereof as paragraph (a) and by adding, 

g after the second sentence therein, a new sentence to read: 

9 "Tlie Secretai-y shall also promulgate standards to govern 

10 die tnmsporCtttion In commerce, and the handling, care, ond 

11 treatment in connection therewith, by iutermediate handlers, 

12 air carriers, or other carriers, of animals consigned by any 

13 dealer, research, faellity, exhibitor, operator of an auction 

14 sale, or other person, or any department, agency, or instru- 

15 mentality of the United States, for transportation in com- 

16 merce. The standards shall inclijde such requirements with 

17 respect to containers, feed, water, rest, ventilation, tempera- 

18 tiire, handling, adequate veterinary care, and other factors ns 

19 the Secretary determines are rclevnnt \u assuring humane 

20 treatment of animals in the course of their traimportatlon in 

21 commerce,". 

22 Sec. 10. Section 13 of such Act is further amended by 

23 adding at the end thereof new paragraphs (b), (c), and 

24 (d) to read: 

25 " (h) No animal, shall be delivered by any denier. 



Digitized byGoOglC 



2& 



I (v^wn-l* t*rtlil,v. t^xliiluhMr, uperttor of in tuelMa 

U tlv|)HI'htu^it, «d:v«i\\, tv iiti-iniiiiviiyity uf the Uaito 

i\ ht «t(> titlvtiH<<Uiitlt> \MKAitr vr i-arrier fur t 

4 wmmivt^ss *»(■ »Hvitt>J lt,v *ny >wU Iwiidltr m a 

n lHU*|tt>tl4ilMk In^tt «((>' iutcli iH>nou, departoiait, ■ 

n lit>liH»ti'»lHlk(;t\ uul<M» t\w muumI is accompanied by a o 

'( iwlv iMttwt U,\ K vt'tt>niMU'M» licvnwd to practice v 

n iiMHllt'liiis »*Mt(>«*il t(Ml Iw iiispwted tJio nuiiBdl on ft^eci- 

ti ltt>il ttttHs w)th4t ultMll Ht>l l« iiHtre tlum ten days b^ore mcfa 

til iMiM'i.v, Hml, witrti m* iiui|HH'W, the auimal was sound and 

II ltiiH<llli>> Ntit'lt iwrUtttttlr* iwvix-vd by the int«nuediate han- 

\t illi>l« HHil 4lu> (>«rrlpnt »\M U' rvlwiwd by them, as provided 

lit li.v mikiiImIIhh* \<i \\w Smtvlftry. in avourdonce witii section 10 

I ( or lltU At>l^ 

tn " (t'l Nil iliifiii Hf I'M*, or addilioiial kinds or classes of 
It) flitiilMlH ttttHiittiHlml by n>|iulKli«i t>f tb« Secretary, dtall be 
lY itvlivciiiil lt,v tMi,v twrniHi lu any iatenn«diate bandter or car- 
IH fWt h>\f (t^lwiHUlMkH) in oouiiufrce except to roistered re- 
lit Nwri'll (ni'ililitm It thoy *n less than ci^t weeks of age, or 
mi mii'li iilllor «)(« m lh« 6eoretary may by regulation prescribe. 
■M 'I'litt Ht>i<it>lnry kImII dedignate additional kinds and classes of 
•JXi Hnllltn^ii mid ittay preaoribe agee different than eight weeks 
'Jl (iir iMtrt'ldlllnr kinds or classes of dogs, cats, or designated 

24 ftiiliuniN, for tlio purposes of this section, when he detprmines 

25 that Huctt action is necessary or adequate to assure their 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



7 

I Hkc. 1'2. I'aragnipb (a) of mttn IS ai amA Xa't 

'i ttiui'iHln) l>y iiiwrtiiig the term * 

II rliT." Ill lln- firwl «'iit«i«! after the t 

4 ti llic hilN'r Icriii npiwarn rn Ihe i 

n lii'ri<h> |Ih> )H'ri<itl ill tlie xccond imitRKP. ■ caaaB tmi it 

(I li'tiii "i>r (>%) MK-li niiiiiml is held by tn intemcdbiF kadtr 

^ III' M (iiitIi'I-" iiitH liy tirlcting the term "or^ htfon Ike ten 

N "(4)"liillMMliil'<lM>iilni<i>. 

t) Nnr, lit. HiTlitm It) (if xiidi Act is amended In- aM^ 

l<> nl llir riiil llint'tif liii' followiiifc new jiaragnipli {i}i 
1 1 " (il) Any iiilomidilititii htiiidler or i-amer dut Ticdate 

I'J iiiiv )ii'i>\iat<iii i)( Hoclimi i:t i)f tliig Act or any standard 

1:1 |it'iithiil|tiili'il llh't-i>niiili>r iiiny be auietised a civil peDahy by 

1 1 till' Hrt'it'liiry iif not itmn- thnii 91,000 for each Bodi th^ 

Itt lltiii, Miii'li viiihiliiiit Khali \w n fwiwrate offense. No penally' 

HI tilinll li(> iiMnrNiituI iiiiUiiN NHch person is given notice aud 

I'' tt|i]Htrliiiiily (oi n ItMnuir with respect to the Mleged viola- 

IH Hull, niitl (lip Diilor of the Scorctnry assessing a penalty 

ID Mlml) Itp lltml mill rotirluRivo unless tiie affected person files 

!li) nil ii|t|H>iil fniin tho Hecretar>-'8 order with die appropriate 

'il t'litird Htntt'R ronrt of appeals. Buch court shall have ex- 

!lil I'ltmlvo jitrixdlftion to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole 

^'1 or 111 ]Hirt), or to detonnine the validity of die Secretary's 

'•i* Di'dt^r, ntid the provisions of sections 3341, 2343 throu^ 

25 28Q0 of tide 28, United States Code, shaU be applicable 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



1 to sncli appenls and orders. Any suck dvil pemilty inny be 

2 couiproiuised \>y the Secretaiy. I'lHin any failure t« jwy the 

3 penalty at^Mesi^ed by a final order under tlm sectiuu, the 

4 SecTetar>' shall request the Attorney Qcncral to lustitute a 

5 civil actiua in a dixtriet court of the United States or other 
6 ' Uiiitcd Htates court for any district in which such i>erson 

7 is fpiuid or resides or ti-auxmits business, to collect the ^ten- 

8 alty, and such court shall have jurisdicticut to hear and 

9 decide any such action.". 

10 Skc. 14. Section 24 of such Act is amended by luscrt- 

11 iuf^ a comma and the term "intermediate Imudlers, and cur- 

12 riers" aft*r the term "dealers" in the thii-d sentence; and by 

13 adding a comma and the following provisions before the pe- 

14 nod at the end of the fii^t sentence: "except that the regu- 

15 ktions relating to intermediate handlers and carriers shall 

16 be prescribed no later than uuie months from tlie date of 

17 enactment of the 'Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 

18 1975'.-". 

19 Sec. 15. Section 25 of such Act is nmended by iiiscrtiug 
30 after subsection (3) the following new subsection : 

21 "(4) recominendutions and conclusions concern- 

22 ing the aircraft environment as It rehites to the caniagc 

23 of live antmab in air transportation." 

24 Sec. 16. (a) Such Act is amended by adding at the 

25 end thereof the following new section ; 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



',) 

"Hue. 2G. (ii) It slniU be unlrnvful for any pei-soii to 
kuowiiigly !4)ioiisi>r, or exliUiit im imiiiuil Jii any uiuiiinl %lit- , 
\ug vciititre t<i wiiifh niiy nuiiiiiil wns moved in iiitei'stiite or 
fiTicigii fimimerc'e. 

"(Ii) It sliiiK bf iiiiliiwful fur any imisiui tii koII, buy, 
tniiisiHirt. or di'livtr to hhoIIilt pt'isuii or rcwivc rrniii jil- 
otln'r jiiusoii for iniriicisi's of Irauspdihitioii, in iuU'rijIatc or 
fiirfijtii I'lmjiin'rce any lioj; or iitlifr [tiiinial for ]iur|K)M's <>[ 
liuviiig the dog or othor animal pnrticiimto in an auinial 
fijrhtiii^ vcutiu'o. 

" {(') It shall be imlawfiil for any person to, knowingly 
use tiie mail seiTiee of tlie L'iiited Slatfs Postal Herviec or' 
imy interstate iustruuientjilily for i)uri>oses of iiromotinj;: tir 
in any other wanner fiirtheniig nn animal lighting venture. 
Section 'HOQl (a) of title 39, Uniled States Code, is amended 
by adding immediately after the words "title IS" u cumma 
and the words "or section 26 of tlie Federal Lahoratory 
Animal Welfare Act". 

"(d) Any person who vioktes suhseetion (a), (h), 
or (e) shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisonetl.: 
for not more than one year, or both, for eaeh sueh violation.^ 

" (e) The Secretary or any other person authorized by 
him shall make such mvestigations as the Seerelary deems, 
necessary to determine wlu'ther any pori?on has violated or 
is violating any provision of this section, and (he Secretary^ 



1 luay ubtaiu tbc &s»ititaDce of the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 

2 tion, the Deparbnent of tlie Treasury, or other law enforce- 

3 ment agencies of the United States, and State and local 
i govemmcutul agcucies, iu the conduct uf w.vh invcstigaf iuii»!, 

5 under cooperative agreements with snch agencies. A warrant 

6 to search fur and seize any animal which there is probnhle 

7 cause to lielicve was involved in any violation of this scctiou 

8 may be isi^ued by any judge of the United States or of a State 

9 court of record or by a United States commissioner within 

10 the district wherein the anbnal sought is located. Any United 

11 States marshal or any pereon authorized under this section 

12 to conduct investigations may apply for and execute any such 

13 warrant, and any animal seised under such a warrant shall 

14 he held by the Unil«d States marshal or other authorized 

15 person pending disposition thereof by the court in accordance 

16 with this paragraph {e) . Necessary care including veterinary 

17 treatment shall be provided while the animals are so held in 

18 custody. Any animal involved in any violation of this section 

19 shall be liable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the 

20 United States at any tJjne on-complaint filed in any United 

21 States district court or other court of the United States for 
^ 9iiy jurisdiction ui which the animal !> found and upon a 

23 judgment of forfeiture shall be disposed of by sale for hiwful 

24 , purposes or by other hupune means, as the court may direct. 

25 Costs mcurred by the United States for cafe of animals seized 



Digitized byGoOglC 



11 

and forfeited under this section shall lie recoverable from tJio 
owner of llie nniniats ii he appears in siieh forfeiture proceed- 
inj; or in a separate civil action brought in the jurisdiction in 
wliieli tlie owner is found, resides, or transacts business. 

" (f) For purposes of this section — 

" (1) the term 'iiuinml fighting venture' nicnns any 

event which involves a fight between at least Iwo aninmis 

and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or 

entertainment; 

" (2) rlic term 'interstate or foreign commerce' 



"(A) liny niovenioiit between luiy jilaee in a 
State to any place in another State or between places 
in the same State throngh another State ; or 

"(B) auj' movement from a foreign country 
into any State, 

" (3) the term 'interstate instriunentality means tele- 
graph, telephone, radio, or television operating in inter- 
state or foreign coimnei'ce ; 

" (4) the term 'State' means any State of tiie I'ni't'd 
States, the District of Cohnnbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Kico, and any territory or possession of the 
United Statea; 

" (;j) the teiTTi 'ammnl' means any live dog or other 
mammal, except man ; and ■ 



35 

12 
I 

1 "(6) the conduct by any person of any activity 

2 prohibited by this section shall not render such person 

3 subject to the other sections of this act as a dealer, 

4 exhibitor, or otherwise. 

5 "(g) The pr(»visioii.s of this Act shall not suiHsi-sedc or 

6 otherwise invalidate any sach State, local, or niunici]>al leg- 

7 islation or ordinance relating to nuinial lighting ventures ex- 

8 cept hi case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between 

9 any requirements thereunder and this Act or any rule, regu- 

10 lation, or standard hereunder.". 

11 Sec. 18. If any provision uf this Act or of the auieud- 

12 ments made hereby or the application thereof to any person 

13 or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder 
l*} of the Act and the remaining auiendtnents and of the ai>plicn- 
15 tion of such provision to other persons and circinnstnuces 
IG shall not be afTected thereby> 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



DEPAHTMK^'T IIF AnitlCIiLTl'RE, 

Office of the Secret ah y, 
WiiiliiniJtoii. D.V., Nnveniber 20. I97SM 
Hon. Wabken G. Uagml'bok, 
Ohairmtm, ComnUtteB on Onmmerce, 
U.S. Senate, Waghinaton, B.C. 

Dkar Mb. Chairuan : Thia is in response Co your request for a report ou S. 1941. 
a bill "To increase tlie protection afforded animalw in traiwit and to asKiiire the 
humane treatment oE nnimats. and for other i>ur|JORes." 

This Department does hot f aror enactment of the bill. 

The l)ill would amend the Act of August 24, 1963, ns nmended, to provide further 
measures with regard to the humane treatment of animals, as defined. The hit) 
would expand the scope of the Act to include intermediate handlers, common 
carriers, and retail pet stores. It extends the definition of an animal to Include 
anr live or dead bird used in connection with a retail pet store or a zoo. The bill 
would clarify coverage of the Act witli respect to intrastate commerce. Tbe 
existing requirements under the Act niCh re|;ard to the facility etaudords for 
licensed dealers and exhibitors would he evtended so as to Include terminal 
facilities used by ttiem. 

Authority would be provliJeG to promulgate regulations and standardn govern- 
ing the transportation In commerce and related handling by intermediate 
handlers and conunoii carriers. Such regulations and standards could inetnrte 
prohibitions on transporting in commerce dogs, cats, and other designated ani- 
mals that are less than eight weeks old (or less than such age as may l>e pre- 
scribed) and could prohibit such transportation nnless the animals involved are 
accompanied by a certificate of health issued by a licensed veteriiiarinii. 

This Department would be required to cousult ,aud cooperate with the tiecre- 
tary of Transportation In the eKtablishment and enforcement of humane stand- 
ards for animals in the course of their transi)ortatlon or while In terminal 
facilities in connection therewith. The bill would provide for administrative civil 
penalties against a dealer, ejthilntor. operator of an auction sale, intermediate 
handlef or common carrier that knowinjfly commits an act prohibited by the Act 
or a standard prescribed thereunder. 

Concerning the animal transportation provLsionB of the hill, there are nvailaltle 
altenatlve measures which ean adilet-e many of the ohjecHves of th* bill. These 
alternatives should !«> fully explored and tested before any additional legislative 
action is taken. . , , .. 

Hspresentativee of the animal carriers, frefcht forwarders, animal dealers, 
humane societies, animal science professionals. State and Federal agencies, and 
other interested parties could coUectlvely develop and agree ou animal trans- 
portation standards and procedures that would be acceptalile to all and wlilch 
could he followed on a voluntary ba.tts, An appropriate forum Cor Iliis would 
be the Natioiiai Council on Animal Transportation, which has representation 
from nearly all of the interested parties In animal transportation. 

The Civil Aeronautics Board has initiated administrative proceeding relating 
to the rules and practices for the acceptance and carriage ol live animals In 
domestic air freight transportation. Following these proceedings, the Depart- 
ment conld provide guidelines which the interested and involved public and the 
animal carriers could use to provide a uniform Imse fur trausporting animois. 

Another focal point for effective activity would I* in the Interagency Com- 
mHtee on Live Animal Transportation formed at the recommendation of the 
House Committee on Government Operations. Tlie original purpose of the Inter- 
agency Committee was to cover only air transportation of animnLs. Its charter 
could be broadened to include other forms of transjiortatlon, and its memliership 
could be expanded to Include other transportation regulatory agencies snch as 
the Interstate Commerce Commis.slon. 

The Interagency Committee held an organizational meeting on Ocioher 30, 
19T4. Rather than duplicate the efforts and information being assimilated by the 
Civil Aeronautics Board's administration hearing, it was decided that the Tom- 
mlttee would wait until the information from the hearing could l>e assembled 
and summarized before determining a proiier eonrse of action. A meeting <)f the 
Committee will he held subesquent to the CAB hearing, and Improvement in the 
humane care and treatment of animals during transportation will be actively 
pursued. 

Concerning the provisions of the hill to Include retail pet stores under ihe Act, 
we estimate that there are as many as 10,000 aach stores iu tbe United States. 



cbyGoot^ICi 



This extension of the Act would require substantial additional Federal funds to 
provide the manpower and other resources necessary for enforcement purposes. 
Under present budgetary and personnel eoiLstraliits, we are in no position to 
recommend such an extension of the Act. 

The Office of Management and BndRet advises tliat there Is no olijection to the 
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. 
Sincerely, 

J. Phil Caupbell, 

U filler Secretary, 

Federal Mahitimb Commission", 

OmcE or THE Chairman, 
Waghington. D.C.. A'ouember 20. 1975. 
Hon. Wahhen G. Maqnubos, 
Chairman, Committee oii. Commerce 
U.S. Senate, Waghington D L 

Dear Mb. Chaikma-s Thlr. b. In reply to your request for tlie views of the 
Federal Maritime Commission on S IMl. a 1)111 "to Increase the protection 
afforded animals in transit and to assure the humane treatment of animals, and 
for other purixises." 

S. 1941 would amend the Jederol I aborntor.v Animal Welfare Act (FLAWA) 
liy making its requirements for the transportation, fale and handling of certain 
animals applicable to common carriers In the conunerce of the I'nited States. 
Section 4 of S. 1&41, which amends Section 2 of FIjAWA dealli^ witli d^nltions, 
would by Us changes SHl)ject those common carriers liy water in the domestic 
■iffshore commerce of the United States nnder our Jurisdiction to its require- 
ments. Section 4 of S. 1941 defines "intermediate liandler" in such manner that 
ocean freight forwarders and non-vessel oiierating common carriers (NVOCC's) 
under our jurisdiction would IliiewlKe l)e subject to tlie terms of FI.AWA. 

Section 6(j) of S. 1941 would autburize the Federal Maritime Commission, as 
ve Interpret this section, to designate and make applicable the terms of FI.u\WA 
to any other person the Commlssl[>n may so select. 

Section 9 of S. 1911 would reiinire common carrler.s to "make and retail for 
such reasonable period of time and on such forms as the Secretary (of Agri- 
culture) may prescribe such recorU« witli respect to the purchase, sale, trans- 
IMrtatiou, ideutiScation, receiving, handling, delivering, and previous ownership 
of animals. ..." 

Section 10 allows tlie Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate jstandarda to 
govern the transportation in commerce, handllag, care and treatment of any ani- 
mals for whom transportation is imrcha.fpd or ordered by : (a) n dealer, (I)) u 
research facility, (c) an owner of a i)et, (d) un exhibition, (e) an O|jerator of au 
auction sale, (f ) a department, agency, or Instrumentality of tlie Federal Govern- 
ment or any State or local governiupiit, or (g) any other person. These standards 
deal with the general conditions of treatment of animals lieiug transiKtrted and 
"other factors determined by the Secretary to be relevant" to assure "humane 
treatment of animals in the course of their transportation." 

Section 11 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the Secretary 
of Transportation for the estaliUslimeut and enforcement of such standards 
prescribed in Section 10 in terminal facilities prior to and post transimrting. The 
rcr, CAB and FMC are then required, within their existing authorities, to take 
such action as is necessary "to inipleineni, enfcirce, or reinforce any determina- 
tion by the Secretary" mode under the Act. 

Section 12 reciulres I'liiteil Mtntes attorneys (o prosecute all criminal viola- 
tions of the FLAWA, while Section 13 sulyects common carrier violations of the 
Act to a civil iienalty of not ni()re than fli.OOO for pacli violation of a jirovisinii of 
the Act. Tills penalty shall be considered a daily seiinrnte offense. If a violation 
is a contlnaing one. The Secretary of Agrictilture sbonid asKCss the amount of 
penalty liy written notice to the violator. 

After an examination of the provisions coiitaincd hi S, 1!>41, the Federal Mari- 
time Commission cannot support passase of tXiXa measure for the following 



a. In the present climate of regulatory reform beiiiit cuIImI for by the I'resideut 
and the Congre.ss, it is inappropriate to increase the regidatory re«i)on.sibilitles 
of the FMC in an area outside our exi>ertise and not <y>nKimaut with the stiipping 

statutes. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



b. This CommLssioii ia fully cogiilennt of tlie I'resi dent's Btript luidgetary ceil- 

I biK for new spending and tliis agency has made every effort to curtail new 

cograms and expenditures. 

'. S. 1941 would place an extremely burdensome reimrtiuE aiid record keeping 

I requirement on those parties under our juri/idictlon who noiild be affected by 

I SiiB act. It has been this Commlanlon's goal to reduce the atuouiil of paperwork 

■ InTolved in our statutory responsibtlittes. 

1 d. The subject matter of S. l&ll, though an im[)ortant issue on which this 

■ ISommlssion shares the Hponsors' concern, is a proltlem liest dealt nltli within 
1 the private sector. The Federal Government should make even effort to assist 

those organizations who support S. Iftil in a uon-statutori manner 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there would he no 
objection to the snbmlsslou of this letter from the standpoint of the Administra- 
"s program. 
Sincerely, 

Karl E. Bakke, 

Chairmai 



Department op Justice, 
Wagfiinglon. D.C.. December S, I91i 
I Bon. Wakbek G, MAONUBOrt, 
I Chairman, Committee on Comnierce. U.S. Senate, 
r Wathington, D.C. 

Dbab Me. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the 
I Department of Justice on S, 1941. a bill "To increase tlie protection afforde.l 
J anlnmla in transit and to assure the humane treatment of animals, and for other 
ftjMirposee." 
T The Mil broadens the Animal Welfare Act h.v extending its provisions ti 

St»nnediate handlers and common carriers, as those terms are defined in the 
II ; providing for the establishment and enforceonent of humane standards for 
I imlmBls in the course of their tranaportation in commerce and in terminnl facll- 
L Ides prior to and after such transportation by Ihe 'Secretary of Agriculture iii 
I oooperatlon with the Secretary of Transportation : re(|uiring the maintenance 
I and retention of certain records witli respect to certain provisions of the Aol : 
] and providing « civil penalty of not more than $2,000 fmr ench vtnlation of a pro- 
n of the Animal Welfare Act or any standard prescriiied pursuant thereto. 
The Department of Justice has for some timel>een ou i-eeord in support of civil 
I Remedies enclusively for violations of the nature of those defined In this bill. 
i However, we objeirt to the wording contained in lines 18-24 on imge 8 <>f the bill 
I Quiring United States Attorneys to prosecute all criminal violations of the Act 
I (eported by the Secretary and to initiate civil actions to recover all civil penal- 
[ Bee assessed and reported by the Secretary or whicli come to their notice or 
I knowledge by other means. Sucii language ia superfluou.'i In vieiw of the provi- 
I Itons of 28 U.S.C. 547 setting fortli the duties of United States Attorneys. 

With the exception of the above noted objections, the Justice Department 
r defers to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation as to the merits of 
I pie bill inaffluu(4i as the subject matter falls primarily witliin their jurisdictlonf,. 
1 The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection txf 
I |tie submission of this r^mrt from the standpoint of the Admlnlstratii 
1 0R>gram. 

Sincerely, 

MiCHAEI. M. Uhl 
AisUtant Attorney General, LegialaU 



>t^^^| 

I 



Department op Agbictji.ti7m:. 

Office or the SEcnETAav, 
Washington. D.C, November 19. 1971 
I -Hon. Warren O. Maonubon, 
I Chairman, Committee on Commerce. 
r V.B. Senate. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : TTils is in response to your request for a ,v 
a bill "To amend tiie Act of August 24, 1966, as amended, to a^urc 
ment of certain animals, and for other purposes." 
Tills Department does not favor enactmenit of the bill. 



1 



cbyGooglc 



The bill would aiDM)d the Labtfratory Animal Welfare Act, aa amended, to 
provide further measures to «S9ure humane treatment of animals, as deQned in 
the Act. The bill espands the scope of tie Act to include "intermedlale handlers'' 
and "caxriers," clarifies coverage with respect to Intmstate commerce, and 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards governing the 
transpori^tlwi In oommerce and related handling by micb intermediate handlen 
and carriers of animals r«?eived from dealers or other peraons or agenclee regu- 
lated under the ipresent Act. It also prohibits delivery by any person to an inter- 
mediate handler or carrier for transportation of certain animals before they reach 
a minimum age, and prohibits specified collect -on -dell very arrangements unle^ 
payment of ttaneportation oharges, Ineludlng, where necessflry, return transpor- 
tation enlarges and other expenses Incurred by the cairier are guaranteed in 
writing t>y the consignor. The bill requires that animals delivered by any dealer 
or oWier presently regulated person or agency to any intermediate handler or 
carrier for transportation in commerce be accompanied by a certificate issued by 
a licensed veterinarian certifying that the animals were inspected by him on a 
specdfled date not more than 10 days before the date of such delivery and were 
sound and healthy. T^e hill provides for a civil .penalty, not to exceed $1,000, for 
violation by any Intermediate handler or carrier of any of the provisions at 
section 13 of the Aot, or any standard promulgated thereunder. It also requires 
consultation with the Secretary of Tran^wrtation In promulgating the standards 
governing air tnanaportetion Of animals. 

The bill adds a new section to the Act making it a criminal offense for any 
person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in a fluting venture to which 
any animal was moved in Interstate or foreign commerce. It also makes it unlaw- 
ful for any person to sell, buy, transport or deliver, or receive for the purposes 
of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce any dog or other animal for 
the purposes of having it participate in a fighting venture. In addition, the bill 
makes It unlawful to knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service or any Interstate 
Instrumentality to promote, or in any other manner futithcr. sucb a venture. 

There are available alternative measures which can achieve many of the 
objectives of the bill, Tliese alternatives should be fully explored and tested 
before any additional legislative actlMi Is taken, 

Re4>re«entatlves of the anluLal carriers, freight forwarders, animal dealers, 
humane societies, animal science professionals. State and Federal agencies, and 
Other interested parties could collectively develop and agree on animal trans- 
portation standards and prrocedures that would lie acceptable to all and whleli 
could be followed on a voluntary basis. An appropriate forum for this would be 
the National Council on Animal Transportation, which has representation from 
nearly ail of the Interested parties in animal transportation. 

The Civil Aerwiautlcs Boaird has Initiated administrative proceedings relating 
to the rules and practices for the acceptance and carriage of live animals in 
domestic air freight frnnsportation. Following these proceedings, the Depart- 
ment could provide guidelines which the Interested and involved public and the 
animal carriers could use to provide a uniform base for trnnsportlng animals. 

Another focal point for effective activity would be In the Interagency Com- 
mittee on Live Animal Transportation formed at the recoromendation of the 
House Committee on Government Operations. The original purpose of the Com- 
mittee was to cover only air transportation of animals. Its charter could be 
broadened to Include other forms of transportation, and its membership could be 
ex,panded to Include other transportation regulatory agencies such as the Inter- 
state Commerce Commission. The Interagency Committee held an organizational 
meeting on October 30, 1974, It was decided that rather than duplicate the efforts 
and information being as^milated by the Civil Aeronautics Board's administra- 
tive hearing, the Committee would wait until the Information from the hearing 
could i>e assembled and summarized before determining a proper course of actiMi. 

A meeting of the Committee will be held this year, subsequent to the CAB hear- 
ing, and improvement in tlie humane care and breatment of animals during 
transportation will be actively pursued, 

Concemlns the animal fighting provisions of S. 2070, the Department strongly 
opposes the holding of su<* events. However, we do not have the kind of trained 
manpower and otlier resources necessary to problMt animal fights or arrest the 
involved persons. In our view, this is a proper respwislbllity of State and local 
law enforcement agencies and, with few exceptions, laws exist at that level, 
whirfi would permit effective dealing with this problem. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



I The Office of MaiiagemenI- on<l Budgt^t advises tJiflt there Is no fihjertioii to the 

I presentation nl this rejiort from fhe atoiidiiiiint of rl>e Adminlstrtition's iirr^ram. 

I Sincerely, 

I J. Phil Campbell, 

I Under Secretary. 

M Depaktuent of Aobicultore, 

I . Office of the i^ECBETAsr, 

■ .- Washington. D.C., Hovemher 19, 1971 
FBon. Wabses G. Maonuhon, 
I Chairman, Committee on Commerce, 

I V.8. Senate. 

1 Dear Mr. Chaibuak : Thi-s is In response to yonr requeBl for a report on S. 2430, 

I ft felll "To amend tlie Act of Aii^9t 24. 1966. as amended, to ansure Inimnne treat- 

I ment of certain animal,';, and for other pnrposeR." 

I This Department does not favor enactment of tlie bllL 

L The Iiill would amend the Laborafory Aninial Welfare Aet. as amended, to 

I provide further measures to assure humane treatment of anlntals. as defined in 

I tbe Act. The Mil expands the scope of the Act to include "intermediate handlers" 

KjUd "carrierB," darlfles eoTeraRe with respect to intrastate commerce, and au- 

nBK>rlEe.s the Secretary of Agriculture to promnlgate standards Bovernlng the 

■ transportation In commerce and related handling iiy such intermediate hundlers 
VhuI carriers of animals received from dealers or o41ier peraons or agencies regu- 
VlKted under the present Act. 14 also prahlbib< delivery liy any person to an inter- 
RUedlate handler or carrier for transjtortation of certain animal.^ before they reach 
Mi minimum age. and prohihits speclBed col lect-on-deli very arrangements unless 
■liayment of transportation charges, including, where necetJaary, return trauRporta- 
Veon charges and otber expenses incurred by the carrier are guaranteed in writing 
9toy the consignor. The bill reijulres that animals delivered by any dealer or other 
Bitresently regulated pertton or agency to any intermediate handler or carrier for 

■ transporlation in crenmerce be accompanied by a certificate issued by a licensed 

■ Teterinarian certifying that the animals were inspected by him on a specified date 

■ Oot more than 10 days before the date of such delivery and were sound and 
I healthy. The bill provides for a civil penalty, not to exceed $1,000, for violation by 
[ any intermediate handler or carrier of any of the provisions of section 13 of the 
r Act. or any standard promulgated thereunder. It also requires consultation with 
I the Secretary of Transportation in promulgating tlie hitaudards governing air 
I transportation of animals. 

I The bill adds a new section lo the Act making it a criminal offense for any 

f person to Itnowlngly sponsor or exhibit an animal in a lighting venture to niilch 

i f)iy animal was moved in Interstate or foreign commerce. 

I It alao makes it unlawful for any person to sell, buy. trans|>ort or deliver, or 

I l«ceive for the purposes of transportation. In interstate or foreign commerce any 

1 dog or other animal for the purposes of having It participate in a lighting venture, 

I In addition, the bill makes it unlawful to knowingly use the U,S. Postal Service or 

V aju interstate instrumentality to promote, or in any other manner further, 

I such a venture. 

L There are available alternative measures which can achieve many of the objec- 

I tlves of the bill. These alternattves should be fully explored and tested before 

I any additional legislative action is taken. 

I B^reaenCatlves of tlie animal carriers, freight forwarders, animal dealers. 

I bmnane societies, animal science professionals. State and Federal agencies, and 

W <>ther Interested parties could collectively develop and agree on animal trans- 

Lte>rtation standards' and procedures that would he ucceptable to all and which 

Feould be followed on a voluntary basis. An appropriate forum for this would be 

p tbe National Council On Animal Tran^xirtation, whicli has representation from . 

wtiearl? all of the interested imrtles in animal transportation, 

I The Civil Aeronautics Board lias initiated administrative proceedings relating 

I te the rules and practices for the acceptance and carriage of live animals In 

I 46inesllc air freight transportation. Following these proceedings, the nejwrtment 

li vcmld provide guidelines which the interested and involved public and the animal 

(•eiirrlers could use to provide a uniform base for lranB|x>rtlng animals, 

K Another focal point for effective activity would be In the Interagency Com- 

KWttee on Live Animal Transportation formefl at the recommendation ot the 



d by Google 



House Committee on Government Operations. The original purpose of the Com- 
mittee was to cover onl; air transportation of animals. Its charter could be 
broadened to include other forms of transportation, and its membership could 
be expanded to Include other transportation regulatory agencies such as the 
Interstate Commerce Commission. The Interagency Committee held an organiza- 
tional meeting on October 30, 1974. It was decided that rather than duplicate the 
efforts and information being assimilated by the Civil Aeronautics Board's ad- 
ministrative hearing, the Committee would wait until the information from the 
hearing could be assembled and summarized before determining a proper course 
of action. A meeting of the Committee will be held this year, subsequent to the 
CAB hearing, and Improvement In the humane care and treatment of animals 
during transportation will be actively pursued. 

Concerning the animal fighting provisions of S. 3430, the Department strongly 
opposes the holding of such events. However, we do not have the kind of trained 
manpower and other resources necessary to prohibit animal fights or arrest the 
tuTOlved persons. In our view, this Is a proper responsibllit]' of State and local 
law enforcement agencies and, with few exceptl<ms, laws exist at that level 
which would permit effective dealing with this problem. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the 
presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. 
Sincerely, 

J. Phil Campbexl, 

Under Secretari/. 

Senator Weicker. Our first witness today will be Dr. Pierre Chaloux, 
Assistant Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services, Department of 
Agriculture. Following Dr. Chaloux's testimony, we will hear agen<y 
witnesses from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Civil 
Aeronautics Roard. Public witnesses invited to testify include repre- 
sentatives of humane societies, animal associations, and air transport 
groups, who will appear as panels in order that the subcommittee may 
accommodate the number of witnesses scheduled to testify today on the 
pending animal welfare legislation. 

At this point in the record, I'd like to insert the statements of Chair- 
man Ma^uson and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator 
Robert Griffin. 

[The statements follow :] 

3T.&TEMCRT OF Hon. Wabren G. Masniison, U.S. Senatob Fbou Washington 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a few minutes to express my support 
for the three bills that are being considered this morning by the Subcommittee on 
the Environment. These are S. 1&41, which I was pleased to co-sponsor along with 
you; S. 2070, introduced by Senator Robert Dole; and S. 2430, legislation which 
I have recently introduced In the Senate as a companion bill to animal transporta- 
tion legislation presently being marked-up by the House Agriculture Committee. 
All three of these measures would amend the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 in order 
to provide better and safer conditions for animals in transit. 

The need for this type of legislation has been attested to during hearings held 
over the past several years In the House by the Government Operations Committee 
and the Agriculture Committee. Witness after witness at these heatings recounted 
horror stories of the hazardu faced by animals in transit. For instance, there Is 
often a lack of ventilation and temperature control in cargo compartments where 
animals are carried. The absence of such controls can, and has, resulted in extrwne 
discomfort to, and even suffocation of, animals. Since animal shipments are not 
always given prloriity as far as handling Is concerned, they can too easily be left 
on an airport runway In the hot sun or freezing rain, or in the cargo compartment 
of a grounded airplane. Furthermore, even If an animal has arrived safely at an 
airport, the perils of journej arp not yet over. Since few terminals have the per- 
sonnel or other facilities needed to feed and water animals, long delays In trans- 
porting *hesp ereatnres to their final destinations can result in starvation and de- 
hydration. Other problems include flimsy shipping crates and undetected disease 
and illness which can lie spread to other healthy animals during shipment. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



42 



I Basically, the prohlem ia one of h hiatus in preeent law. Under tie Animal Wel- 
^re Act of 1970, the Secretary of Agriculture has the euthiffity to issue and 
Miforce standards for the inre of animalu In laboro-torlei^ and other facilities 
tliroug!) regulation of animal dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities. That 
taw does not, however, provide the Secretary with the authority to similarly 
regulate the transportation of these animals liy common eflTriers and other 
intermediate handlers, such as airlines, railroads, trucks and Other shipping lines. 
While some segments of the industry, notably the airlines whidi tiandle tlie bulk 
of animal shipments, have taken steps within the last few years to voluntarily 
adopt such standards of care, these are often inadequate, they are itot always 
uniform, and they are not always enforced. Thus. It appenrs that there Is a need 
for some degree of government regulation in this area. There is also, however, a 
great deal of confusion as to whii* agency, if any, presently has the authority 
and the expertise to promulgate and enfon-ce t4U<4i regulations. Primary candi- 
dates for the job would oppear to be the Department o* Agriculture, the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and to a lesser extent the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, While the three regulatory agencies have at 
least some authority to regulate animal shipments, they do not have the expertise. 

tThe Department of Agriculture, on the other hand, has the espeirtl.'e to do tJie 
iob, but not the anfhority. Thus, from the standpoint of bureaucratic efficiency. 
io me it would seem like just plain sense to simply close the gap in existing law 
tnd provide tbe Secretary with Oie authority to regulate coramtHi carriers and 
latermedlate handlers under the Animal Welfare Act as he is now regulating 
laboratories, research facilities, and animal dealers. The basic thrust of the three 
trills being considered today is to accomplish this objective. 
While these bills do differ from one another in some resjiects, liasically they 
provide the Secretary wltb the authority to promulgate standards for the care of 
animals by common carriers and intermediate handlers. Such standards would 
cover items such as eonfiainers, feed, water, rest, ventilation, temperature, air 
pressvnre, and veterinaty care. To facilitate enforcement the Secretary would tie 
authorized to require carriers to keeii records on the purchase, sale, transporta- 
tion, and identiflcation of animals, as well as other aspects of their bandliuK. 
Ihe Secretary would also have the authority to prdiibit the transport of very 
young animals, and to require that liealtb cei4iflcates accompany animals being 
shipped to insure that they are physically able to withstand the rigors of trans- 
portation. Finally, the bills would require the Secretary to consult with other 
agencies, notably the Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of 
regulations to Insure that such regulations do not threaten transportation safet)'. 
In my view, legislation of the type lieing considered here this morning will go a 
long way toward improving the care and handling of animals in transit by sin- 
gling out one federal agency, the Department of Agriculture, as the lend agency 
primarily responsible for promulgating and enforcing standards of care by han- 
dlers and carriers. I commend the Subcommittee, and particularly you Senator 
Welcker, for your interest in this l^slation and will urge my colleagues on the 
full committee to give the bill which is the final product of this hearing their full 
support. II 

Statement op Hon. Hobeht P. Geiffin, U.S. Sbhator From Miohioan ■ 'IB 

^ Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Subcommittee is today receiving testl- 
' on proposed amendments to extend the protection of the Animal Welfare 
if 1066 to animals transported In interstate commerce. As a cosponaor of one 
e measures under consideration, I am hopeful that these hearings, coupled 

,irtth action now underway in the House of Representatives, will lead to the 

porrection of some basic gaps in existing law. 

,, The need for this legislation is obvions. Since the Second World War, this 
Hintry has experienced a tremendous increase in the commercial shipment of 

Jnlmals. At the present time, almost all of the animals shipped are shipped by air. 

•_ The simple fact of the matter Is that^while the transportation Industry, and 

«rliculariy the air carriers, have been experiencing tremendous technological 

Ij^Tances — there has been no commensurate effort to ensure (he safety of live 

>, either in flight or on the ground. Indeed, to hear some of the experiences 

( pet owners and research facilities, the transportation of their animalii seems 

B be an afterthought at beat. 



,yGooi^lc 



43 

Much ot the blame for this situation can be laid to tbe fact that no onlfonn, 
clearlr-deflned standard exists concerning the bandllag of animals. As tbe situa- 
tion exists at present, carriers lack tbe expertise, and government — particularly 
the Department of Agriculture — lacks tbe authority to ensure tbe safety of 
animals in transit. 

Hopefully, we will be able to enact — with help of tbe expert testimony fnnn 
humane groups and industry representatives— legislation which will afFord ani- 
mals the same security in transportation that we have all come to exi)ect for 
ourselves. 

Senator Weicker. Dr. Chaloux, please proceed, 

STATEMENT OF SB. PIEBBE A. CHALOUX, ASSISTANT SEFUTT AS- 
HINIST&ATOB, 7ETEKINAB7 SEBVICES, ANIHAL ASH PLANT 
HEALTH IHSFECTIOK SERVICE, SEPARTHENT OF AaRICULTUB£ 

Dr. Chaloux. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
appreciate the opportunity to express the views of the Department of 
Agriculture on S. 1941, S. 2070, and S. 2430. These bills would amend 
the act of August 24, 1966, as amended by the Animal Welfare Act 
of 1970, so as to assure the humane treatment of certain animals which 
are transported and liandled by common carriers and intermediate 
handlers who are not subject to regulation under the present law. 

Additionally, S, 1941 would require retail pet stores to be licensed 
as dealers; and S. 2070 and S. 2430 include provisions prohibiting 
dog or other animal fights. 

Since 1966, the Department has been responsible for administration 
of the animal welfare laws, which have the objective of assuring 
humane care and treatment of certain animals intended for use in 
research facilities, for exhibition, or for use as pets. Our activities 
include licensing or registering some 8,000 dealers, exhibitors, op- 
erators of auction sales, and research facilities. These persons must 
meet standards of animal care set by the Department and enforced 
through regular inspections, action on alleged violations, and review 
of reports of research facilities, including information on the ap- 
propriate use of pain-relieving drugs during experimentation on 
animals. 

We know that great strides have been made in the improvement and 
continued assurance of humane care and treatment for certain animals. 
As is true with most laws, a few persons covered by the laws are not 
in total comoliance with the Department's standards of humane animal 
treatment. Such discrepancies are found by our periodic unannounced 
inspections of premises of licensees and registrants, monitoring of 
animal shipments at airports, complaints given us by an interested 
public, and occasional news media articles and telecasts. Investigations 
are made to determine the facts, and we take whatever steps are appro- 
priate to correct the situation. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department does not favor passage of S. 1941, 
S. 2070, and S. 2430. Alternative measures are available which can 
achieve many of the objectives of the bills with regard to animal 
transtwrtation. Until these alternatives have been fully explored and 
tested, we do not favor legislation which substantially increases the 
regulatory powers of tbe Federal Government. 

One of these alternatives would be to rely on voluntary cooperation 
among all of the groups interested in the animal transportation prob- 



DigilizedbyGoOglC 



44 

ilmi. Representatives of animal eAiricrs, freight forwarders, aniiniil 
Ldealers, liiiiiiane societies, animal science professionals. State nnd Fed- 
^1 afrencies, and other interested parties could collectively develop 
_ ind agree on animal transportation standards and pi-ocedures that 
f would be acceptable to all and which could be followed on a vohmtarv 
r'^sis. The National Conncil on Animal Transport ation. which has 
y ^presentation from nearly all of the interested parties in animal trans- 
[ portation. might be a good forum for voluntary cooperation in the 
[ upgi'adingof animal transportition standards. 

' Also, an administrative proceeding, docket No. 2B310, i.s currently 

\ being conducted by the CAB on the rules and practices for the accept- 

I ince and carriage of live animals in domestic airfreight transportation. 

The CAB hearing is for the purpose of examining the provisions and 

practices of air carriers with respect to issues such as the acceptance, 

packaging, documentation, care and handling, loading, flight environ- 

r flfient, and priority of carriage of live animals in domestic airfreight. 

A??be Department has appeared and provided such expertise as we have 

■available. Parties to the proceeding represent the gi-oups and types of 

V*rgiinization8 previously mentioned. 

I'TVe believe that a great deal of information and data will lie gen- 

Perated by the CAB proceeding. Following thesi' pi'oceedings, (he De- 

"^rtment could provide guidelines which the interested and involved 

ttiihlic, and the animal carriprs. could use to provide a uniform basis 

Jxor transporting animals. 

I, Another focal point for effective activity would be in the Inter- 
ptjjency Committee on Live Animal Transportation formed at tlie 
Ffcconimendation of the House Committee on Government OpemtionH. 
f This committee is comprised of representatives of the FAA, the CAB, 
7 and the USDA. 

' The onginal purpose of the Interagency Committee was to cover 

rtnlv air transportation of animals. Its charter could Ite brnndened to 

include other forms of transportation, and its membersbip could Ix^ 

' expanded to include other transport.atiou regiilatory ajrcncies such 

as the ICC. The Interagency Committee held an orgnnizationiil meet- 

inij on October .SO. 19"4. It was decided that rather than dupllcnte tlie 

I efforts of the Civil Aeronautics Board's administrative hearing, the 

fiommittec would wait until the information from the hearing could 

fce a,ssembled and summarized before determining a ju-opev course of 

iction. A meeting of the committee will be held this year, subset-uent 

to the CAB hearing, and improvement in the humane cai-e nnd treat- 

[ taent of animals during transportation will be actively pursued. 

. Since January 1!>T4, the Pepartmeiit has been monitoriue the trans- 

I portation of animals at several maior air terminal.^. Through the 

L (jooperation of airlineand transport, agency personnel, we have checked 

Jjme shipments of 1"^ST) A licensed dealers for sucli thinir; as satisfactory 

"fUppins' containers, sufficient space for the animals, the ventilation 

Ifrovided by the container, the ap)>arent health nf the animals, and 

fthether the refinired T^SDA records accomuanied the shipment. We 

|»ve written many letters of waniing to TTSP.V licensees, notifying 

iiem of aimarent discrepancies. 

I mi<!;ht add that we are looking into the nossibilitv of retiuirin" un 

[faidividnnl health certificate for dogs and cats shipped by UST>.\ 

■licensees and registrants, including n requirement that such a health 



jyCoCil^lC 



45 

certificate be signed by a doctor of veterinary medicine accredited for 
such purposes by the Department. Under Department regulations, cor- 
rective action can be taken against accredited veterinarians who do not 
fulfil] their responsibilities as presented in the regulations. 

Concerning the i-etail pet stoi-es provisions of S. 1941, we estimate 
that there ai-e. as many as 10,000 such stoi-es in the United Stat€S. This 
extension of the act would require substantial additional Federal funds 
to provide the nianiX)wer and otlier I'esources necessary- for enforce- 
ment purposes. Under present budgetary and personnel constraints, 
we are in no position to recommend such an extension of the act. 

Concerning the animal figliting provisions of S. 2070 and S. 2430, 
the Department abhoi-s such events. However, we do not have the 
kind of trained manpower and otiier resources necessary to proliibit 
animal fights or arrest tlie involved persons. Further, we believe this 
to be a proper responsibility of State and local law enforcement 
agencies. 

Mr. Chairman, this conchides my remarks. 

Senator Weicker. Tliank you, Dr. Chaloux. 

Now getting right down to hraps tacks, have yon ever been on these 
unannounced inspection visits that you mentioned in your testimony! 

Dr. CiiALorx. I have not iM'i-soually Iwen on those visits. 

Senator Wkicker, Have you ever. Ixfore the REA was disbanded, 
visited that facility right here in Washington? 

Dr. Chai^ux. T have not personally done that. 

Senatoi' Weickkh. AVell, I did A years ago and I just made inquiry* 
as to whether oi' not the facility continues to exist. I understand it 
does not because of the financial difficulties of RKA and so the freight 
is handled at each one of the airline teiminals. but certainly that 
visit has been one of the main reasons for nu^ pui-suing this type of 
legislation and I find it really rather difficult to understand how some- 
one that is in charge of the inspection process to see that whatever 
standards are in effect are iTiaintained has not been engaged in one 
of these visits. 

I gather, basically wliat you're telling me is that yon feel tliat this 
matter could probably ho liandled in a voluntary way. 

Dr. CiTAix>ux. Yes. sir. 

Senator WEirKKR. Dr. Chaloux. not having seen what is actually 
occurring, how can you make a recommendation like that? 

Dr. CiiAi^otx. We have a jmml>ei- of inspection personnel who have 
made visits and liave reported to ns their findings. 

Senator WsirKER. This legislation in one form or the other has 
been in the legislative hopper since 1!)70 and yet I note in your 
testimony that you feel some time slioidd be given to go ahead and 
study the problem further and come foith with recommendations, 

I just fail to understand what's so difficult about applying a certain 
set of standards that would have lo be met by the air carriers. l\Tiy 
all the opposition iii the bureaucracy? 

Dr, CiiALOTJx. We believe that the regiilatoiy powers of the Fed- 
eral Government should not be extended into this area because there 
are alternative means of accomplii^bing the same purpose. 

Senator Weicker. I know, but it hasn't been accomplished. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



I 



46 

Dr. Chaloux. To date, it has not. 

Senator WEirKER. It has not. If you make just one vifnt tol 
facility or facilities like it across the country — and you don't have to 
be a professional like yourself or a Senator like myself — yon will come 
to a very fast conclusion, as I'm sure we will hear testimony on later, 
that these animals are being fairly badly treated. 

Wliat does it take before we po ahead and move ? I understand they 
are not human beings and they can't complain to their congressman 
and senators, but I find it very diffionlt. Doctor, I really do, unle-ss yon 
have firsthand knowledge — that's why I'm going to move on here — to 
try to dialogue with somebody when they don't know the conditions 
about which they are unwilling to move on. 

Have you seen, for example, the containers, the packing crates et 
cetera? Have you seen what is done here in the way of packing 
animals in a container that is too small or in one that is improperly 
put together so that the container actually wounds the ftnimal ? Have 
you seen that? 

Dr. CnAix>ux. I have seen pictures of the containers and I have had 
reports from our inspection people on the results of the use of these 
containers. 

Senator Weicrer. Is your judgment relative to engaging in a volun- 
tary program based on budgetary considerations? In otlior words, that 
^t would require additional funds to go ahead and conduct a mean- 
■^ igful enforcement? 

Dr. Chalottx. Yes, sir. It would take additional fimds and pei-sonnel. 

Senator WEirKER. The other thing that escapes me is how do we 
expect to get voluntary cooperation to do a iob that has been certainly 
in the forefront of people's attention for at least 5 or 6 yeai-s? Why all 
the sudden is the voluntary program going to do the job when it hasn't 
done the job for the last 5 or fi years ? 

' Dr. CnAixJxrx. We have some things working for us now that we 
'?lid not have earlier. The CAB hearings will certainly bring out some 
■information that we can use. At the end of these hearings, we will be 
position to hold a meeting of the Interagency Committee and make 
Certain recommendations that we believe the industry could follow on 
n voluntaiy basis. 

Senator Weicker. "Wliile the Department of Agriculture seems to 
have great faith in what will proceed from the recently completed 
CAB hearings, the CAB does not appear to be so optimistic that 
these, proceedings will provide a solution to the problem of animal 
transportation. 

In reviewing the testimony that's going to be given by the CAB 
iter this afteraoon, I ran across the following statement : "However. 

le actions which the Board will ultimately be in a position to take at 

conclusion of this proceeding will fall short of a satisfactory solu- 

fon of the problems of the safe and humane transportation of 

limals." 

The hopes of the two agencies seems to be at odds. Do you care to 

imment on that ? 

Dr. CitAi-OTTx, No. sir. 

Senator WEirKER. I wonder if you would— you are the Assistant 
puty Administrator for Veterinary Services of the Animal and 
'lant Health Inspection Service of TTSDA : is that correct ? 



jyGooglc 



47 

Dr. Chaloux. That's correct. 

Senator Weicker. And it's your feeling in that capacity that insofar 
as concerns the conditions of animals in transportation and so forth, 
that there's something that can be far better accomplished by a volun- 
tary program — and do you think there's an urgency to anything being 
done. 

Dr. Chaloux. Yes; there is an urgency to have sometliing done. We 
hope to be able to have the Interagency Committee meeting before 
the end of the year. 

Senator Weicker, Are you aware that this type of legislation has 
been before the Congress for the last 5 or 6 years? 
Dr. CHALOtjx. Yes, sir, I am aware of that. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I have no further questions at tliis time, 
Dr. Chaloux, but I would appreciate your staying in the hearing room, 
so if there's further testimony that comes up, it would afford you an 
opportunity to respond. 

Dr. Chalottx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Richanl Skully, Director of Flight Stand- 
ards Service, FAA. Mr. Skully, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF EICHAED P. SKULLY, DIRECTOR, FUOHT STAND- 
ARDS I^RVICE, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ACCOM- 
PANIED BT CURTIS A. HcKAY, CHIEF, AIR CARRIER DIVISION 

Mr. Skully, Mr. Cliairman and members of the subcommittee, I 
am Richard P. Skully, FAA Director of the Flight Standards Service. 
With me is Mr. Curtis A. McKay. Chief of the Air Carrier Division in 
the Flight Standards Service, The DOT appreciates this opportunity 
to appear before you today with respect to S, 1941, S. 2070, and S. 2430, 
bills designed to assure the humane treatment of animals, and for 
other purposes. 

On the merits of those bills, which concern the amendment of legisla- 
tion presently administered by the USDA, we defer to that department. 

We do wish to advise the committee of the recent action by the FAA 
with respect to the rule relating to storage of containers for trans- 
porting of animals aboard aircraft. FAA originallv proposed the rule 
to become effective in October 1974. That rule would have required that 
cargo containers containing live animals be securely attached to the 
aircraft cargo compartment in a manner that prevents shifting; be 
protected to prevent crushing by other cargo in the compartment ; and 
be located in the careo compartment in a manner that assures that 
ventilation areas of the containers are not obstructed. 

In response to petitions and a consi<lerable volume of correspondence 
asserting difficultie.s in achieving timely compliance with the rule, and 
the adverse effect it would have on shippers, the FAA twice postponed 
its effective date to October 18. 1J>75. La-^t month, after additicmal 
review and consideration of petitions and correspondence requesting 
further deferral of the effective date or rescission of the rule, the rule 
was rescinded. The i-escission is published, as amendment 121-124 to 
part 121 of the Federal Aviation Eeinilations. in the Federal Eeenster 
dated October 21, 197.'). The pi-eamble to that amendment, a copy of 
which I would like to offer for the i-ecord. reviews the reasons for the 
rescission. The preamble would invite interested persons to submit 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



48 



I comments coiicernrng tlie nilc and rescission whioh we will carefully 
consider. 
Other general problems wliich have been mentioned from time to 
time in connection with the shipment of live animals extend into areas 
beyond those pertaining to the stowage of containers. As we have 
tacently testified before a. subcommitte© of the House of Representa- 
tives, the FAA lacks the expertise to develop standards for the tem- 
perature levels and air supply needed for different kinds of animals 
which may be carried aboard aircraft. We also are not experts con- 
cerning the containers in which they are transported. We are concerned 
with the economic impact of these niles on the pet industry, the pet 
owner, and the airlines. We are not in a position to make zoological or 
I veterinary judgments. We are in the biisinoss of safety of flight and 
^ould continue to concentrate our resources in that diretrtion. The 
' FAA's pflnc^m and role in this area can be. satisfied if it retains the 
final autiiority to assure that any action taken enluinces or does not 
I adversely affect safety of flight. In any event, we believe that regard- 
1 less of any present diviainn of authority among Federal agencies, it 
L Would not l)e appropriate for the FAA to undertake any comprehen- 
l aive pi-ogram for implementing or enforcing standai-ds for the humane 
I treatment of animals in air transportation. 

ft -'We will, of course, work with the Interagency Committee that was 
■3(ormed to identify existing problems in the shipment of live animalfi 
l^uid develop suggestions for corrective action. We will coftti'ibiite what 
I wecantothe efforts of thfltcomraittee. 

This concludes my ^atement. Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to 
I respond to any questions you may have. 
[The attachment referred to follows:] 

' [BTom the Federal Reglater. Tuesdaj, Oct. SI, 1875 ; Dorhet No. 135B9 : Amiil. No. 121-124) 






ABOARD 



The purjiose of tliis amendment to Part 121 Of the Federal Aviation RpgrUafioiis 
IS to readnrt S 121. 2S8, ''Carritige of live anlmnls In containers In eargo comparl- 

I On AnguM 0, 1974, the FAA issued Amencinieiit 121-111, efTecfive Octolier IS. 
I 1B74, to Part 121 of the Federal Aviation RetcHlallons (pnbHshed in the PedernI 
I Itegister on August 19, 1974; 39 FR 29917) to reaulre that cni^n contalnerR 
I iousing live animals for carriage by air in the caiw compartinenita of aircraft 
I 8e secured in the cargo compartment In such a fashion as to prevent shirting 
ftnd tie protected from the hagardR if shifiiog of other cargo, aud to assure that 
ventilation areas of the container are not obatnioted, Tliat amendment was haaed 
L ^. a notice of proposed rule making (Notice 74-10) published in the Federal 
L'lte^steroii March 11. 1974 (39FR9456f. 

I ! In reaponse to petitions received from tlie Air Transport AssociatfaD of America 
^iiiad Socithem Airwaj'S, lac, and m«ubers of the medical profeaeiou engaged In 
[nwarcli UHtng live animals, Hie FAA lesiied Amendnieni No. 121-112 (SB PR 

; Octoher 11, 1974). and extended the dnte for .-ompliBnce with « 121-28fi 

) F*rnary 18. 1973, to allow certificate holders additional time for ohtiiining 
iSlid installing necensary e(mipmeot. 
' 'Shortly liefnre the new compliance tlote, the FAA received liuudreds of letter.-^ 
Fssd mallgiams from pet and animal dealers, medical schools, research lahora- 
s, and others, staling that they feni'pfl rnrt 121 cerfiUcole holdprn woiiW 
mbargo the shipment of live animals if tlie rule was not rescinded or the com- 
? date extended. They assertetl that the threatened emiiargo would cou.se 
ftiem serious ftnaudal injury. If ant ^ut tliem out of business. In addition, there 



,vGoo'^lc 



49 

s expressions of conce n that the nile n'oald limit arallable capac- 
ity for shipping live animals by ai thus eating a severe hardship on tbe 
pet Industries. Based on these pet tion the I< W issued Amendment Xo. 121-116 
(40 FB 7436; February 20, 1975) extend ng tl e effective date to October 18,1975. 

On February 3, 1975, Pef Inlu tries Jol t ilvisory Council and others peti- 
tioned the FAA to either rescind 8 1 1 'iS o initiate new rulemakiuK proceed- 
ings on the transportation of animals b a (fc 4A Regulatory Docket Xo. 14301). 
On May 1, 1975, tbe Air Transport Association of America petitioned the FAA 
to make certain revisions in g 121.2SS (FAA Regulator>- Docltet Xo. 14622). 

A large voiume of correspondence received by the FAA has contained nnmerons 
expressions of concern that, following the October 18, 1975, effective date of 
S 121.288. avallabie space for the shipment of live animals will be severely 
curtailed. Some Part 121 certificate holders have made it known to the pet 
industry, medical schools, lalioratories, and ntbers that they exi>ect to have 
less space available for the shipment of lire animals following modincalion 
of tlieir aircraft cargo compartments. Others have indicated they will l)e required 
to initiate proceedings to embargo tbe sbipment of animals on their aircraft 
because they are unabie to provide the appropriate tie-down eiinipment in some 
aircraft types. Many who wrote the FAA expressed tlieir concern for the humane 
treatment of animals, but stressed that any curtailment In the shipment of 
live animals would either force them into a drastic cutback in personnel or 
force them out of business completely. 

CertlBcate holders bave indicated that to achieve compliance with the rule 
tbej would have to dCKignate specific areas in each cargo compartment for the 
carriage of live animals and that each container would bave to lie individually 
secured to the cargo compartment. This would preveut the certificate holders 
from transporting the volume of live animals presently being carried. It would 
also reduce the total available cargo space. In addition, because of the small 
cargo areas of certain airplanes, some certificate holders would not be able to 
transport any live animals in those airplanes. 

Ortiflcate holders and the i>et Industry, In voicing their disapproval of | 121. 
288, have taken a position that the present rule will not improve what they 
consider to be an already excellent record of safety in the transportation of lire 
animals and because of the adverse effect on the air cnrricr's capacity to carry 
live animals will result in a disservice to the traveling public, dippers of live 
animals, and medical research professions. They contend that the language of 
the rule is vague and ambiguous and is subject to various interpretations. They 
assert that compliance with the existing rule will result in higher costs to 
private pet owners, conimercial shippers, medical schools and laboratories, and 
others, and that this is due in part to the reduction in available space for shipping 
live animals which will result in more trips to the airport to i>ick up parts of a 
shipment of animals that formerly could be ship[>ed as one unit. They also 
Indicate that It is probable that each certificate holder will have to inaugurate 
a live animal reservation system to assure adequate space available on origi- 
nating and connecting flights. These higher shipping costs would be transferred 
to the owner or shipper. 

On September 9. 1975. the FAA on l>ehaif of the Department of Transportation 
presented prepared testimony before the Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains 
of the House Committee on Agriculture. The FAA stated that it was reviewing 
H21288, guided liy the Administration's intention to seek to accomplish regulatory 
reform, particularly with respect to esfra Imrdens Imposed by regulations. It 
was also stated that the FAA cai-efuHy considered the information submitted to 
the agency before the effective date of the rule was extended, and that the effect 
of the aircraft modifications needed has generated more complex issues than 
those the FAA anticipated, particularly with respect to stowage and cargo com- 
partment environment. 

Moreover, the FAA stated i 

The FAA lacks the expertise to develop standards for the temperature levels 
and air supply needed for different kinds of nninmls which may be carried abroad 
an aircraft. We also are not experts concerning tbe containers in which they are 
transported. We are concerned with the economic impact of these rules on the pet 
industry, tbe pet owner and the airlines. We are not in a i)osition to make zoologi- 
cal or veterinary judgments. We .ire in the business of safety of flight and should 
continue to (ijocentrate our resources in that direction. • • • In any event, we 
iielieve that regardless of any present division of authority it would not be 
appropriate for tbe FAA to undertake any comprehensive pri^ram for imple- 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



50 



i^menting or enforcing standards for the humane treatment of animals in air 
trftnsportation. 
• The FAA Is concerned tliat industries wliose livelihood depends on the fast, 
rriiable air shipment of live animals would he adversely affected. Apparently. 
tOie rule also would hamper medical research efforts and increase the animal 
^owners' and shippers' costs substantlallr. In addition, it should be noted that 
■pertlflcnte holders would face increased costs due to the installation and malnte- 
■aance of special tie-down e(iuipment and the need for an animal reservadon sy«- 
*tem. Loss of revenue could also result because of reduced capadty <both in animal 
■Bd general cargo shipments). Finally, there would be a higher risk of inhumane 
treatment of animals in transit due to a reduction In available space that would 
cause delays in shipment at the originating station and at enroute stope. 

Since compliance with i 121.288, as adopted, will create practical problems 
resulting in a serious curtailment in the shipment of animals and the Imposition 
^^H of an undue economic burden on Part J21 certificate holders and shippers of 
^^L animals, the FAA has determined that allowing S121.28S to become effective 
^^H would not be appropriate or in the public intereiS. The FAA must consider fiirther 
^^H whether nmendroents to the Federal Aviation Regulations, if any, should he 
^^^^ Adopted with respect to the carriage of live animals. Rather than extend the 
^^^B Affective daite of i 121.288 again while this matter Is under consideration, it 
^^^Hsppears that the most appropriate course of action is to rescind § 121.288. Pre- 
^^^■"tIous extensions have wily served to confuse the issues and create additional 
^^^H 'toncem. Immediate rescission of the rule will also eliminate any further uncer- 
^^^B Italnty as to whether the projected needs of the pet Industry, medical research 
^^M #nd others can be met by S 121.288. 

^^^B . Under these circumstances, I And that notice and public procedure on this 
^^^H Vesctsslon would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that 
^^^H kood cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. How- 
^^^K ever, the FAA is soliciting further public comment. Interested persons are invited 
^^^H to submit comments in duplicate by November 18. 1975. addressed to Federal 
^^^m Aviation AdminUtration, OfSce of the Chief Counsel, Attention : Bules Docket, 
^^H 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20591. 
^H ilSl.288 IRevoked] 

^^^1 In consideration of the foregoing, effective October 17, 1975, i 121.288 of the 
^^^B federal Aviation Regulations adopter! by Amendment 121-111 published In the 
^^H Federal Register on August 18, 1974 (39 FR 29917) is hereby rescinded. 
^^B ' (Sec, 31!l(fl), eOKa), and 604 of the Federal Aviation Act of 19.18; 49 U.8.C. 
^^B ase4(a). 1421(a), and 1424. 8ec. 6(c) of the Department of Transportation Act : 
^^1 49 n.S.C. 1656(c). 

^^M Issued in Washington, D.C, on October 17, 1975. 

^^^1 James E. Dow, 

^^^1 Acting AdnUtUgtralor. 

^^H Senator Weicker. Well. I think you have correctly identified the 

^^H role of the FAA, both as to its general concern with air transport 

^^H «afety and more specifically only their attention to animals as it might 

^^H affect the safety of the aircraft. I can't dispute that at all. 

^^^1 Ton mentioned this is something the FAA thinks Agriculture 

^^H should handle? 

^^H Mr. Skttllt. Yes, sir. 

^^H Senator Weicker. Well, Agriculture isnt. doing it so far, I'm a little 

^^^B at a loss where to turn, but hopefully we will fit together the pieces of 

^^H the puzzle. I don't dispute your testimony at all. I would appreciate. 

^^H iiere again, rather than a«lnng any questions right now, if you could 

^^^1 'tolease just stay in the. room and if anything comes up we could give 

^^^B you an opportunity to respond. Thank you very much. 

^^^1 Miss Katherine Kent, Assistant Director. Bureau of Economics, 

^^H Civil Aeronautics Board. 

^^^1 Miss Kent, please go ahead. ^^H 



STATEMENT OF KATHEEINE A. KENT, ASSISTANT DIEECTOE, 
BUSEAV OF ECONOMICS. CIVIL AEBONAUTICS BOARD; ACCOHFA- 
mED BT ELLEN B. SILBERSTEIN, ATTORNEY 

Miss Kent. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am 
pleased to present the views of the CAB with respect to S, 1941, 
S. 2070, and S. 2430, all of whicli would give the Secretary of Agri- 
culture Rutliority to promulgate standanls governing the humane 
transportation of animals by common carriers. 

I have with me today Miss Ellen B, Silberstein, an attorney with 
the Bureau of Economics, 

The Board strongly endorses bhese bills and believes that tJiey con- 
tain provisions, which if enacted, would result in more humane treat- 
ment of animals transported by air. 

The difficulty with the present situation is that no single Govern- 
ment a^ncy has the authority, manpower, and expertise necessary for 
the establishment and enforcement of adequate standards for the 
humane transportation of animals by air. Instead, three Government 
agencies — the USDA, the FAA, and the Board — have ill-defined and 
incomplete iurisdiction over air transDortation of animals. 

The Board itself does not have plenary power to issue regulations 
for the transportation of animals by air. We cannot prescribe regula- 
tions unless we first find, on the basis of an evidentiary record, that the 
existing rules and practices of the carriers result in inadequate service 
or are otherwise unlawful. Moreover, the Board's staff lacks the ex- 
pertise necessary to develop a complete set of rules for the humane 
transportation of animals by air. Even more importantly, we lack the 
nationwide field capability necessary for an effective enforcement pro- 
cram, which is so crucial in this area. 

Furthermore, under current law, tlie Board's regulatory powers do 
not extend to shippers of live animals, although many injuries and 
fatalities are directly related to inadequate packaging by shippers and 
the tendering of animals which are in poor liealth before air trans- 
portation actually commences. 

Despite tliese problems, the Board is currently engaged in a formal 
investigation concerning tlie rules and practices relating to the accept- 
ance and carriage of live animals in domestic airfreiglit transporta- 
tion, designated as docket 26310. Among other matters, this investi- 
gation includes an inquiry into carrier rules and practices regarding 
acceptance, packaging, and documentation of animal shipments, as 
well as ground and in-flight handling, and the priority of carriage. 
Hearings before an administrative law judge were concluded in Octo- 
ber, and the parties filed initial briefs with the administrative law 
judge on Monday, November 17. Reply briefs are due December 1. 

We embarked on this investigation fully aware of our limitations, 
because we were convinced that serious problems existed, and because 
it appeared that no other agency was dealing effectively with these 
problems. We intended that the Board's hearing would serve as a 
forum wliere those with expertise — ^the shippers, humane societies, 
otlier Government agencies, as well as the carriers — could propose 
solutions. However, the actions which the Board will idtimately be 
in a position to take at the conclusion of this proceeding will fall 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



52 

eliort of a satisfactory sohition to the problrans of the safe and humane 
transportation of animals. Such a solution, in our opinion, requires 
legislation conferring plenai7 jurisdiction over the entire matter to 
a single agency. In our judgment, the USDA with its staiT of veteri- 
narians and its field operations, is the agency best able to estahlisli 
and enforce rules in this area. 

The Board does liave two specific suggestions. 

First, the bills under consideration would empower the Secretary of 
Agriculture to promulgate transportation standards only for those 
classes of animals enumerated in section 2132(g) of the Laboratoiy 
A.nimal Welfare Act, which does not inchide many kinds of animals 
currently being transported by air. We would urge that the scope of 
the legtislation be expanded to provide for the establishment of trans- 
portation standards for all live animals. 

In addition, we suggest that these bills be amended to require that 
the Secretai^- of Agriculture consult with the Board prior to promul- 
gating regulations. We believe that the expertise of the Boai-d's staff 
in matters relating to aviation may be helpful to the Department in 
carrying out its duties under this pioposed legislation. 

We also note that section 10 of S. 1941 specifically provides that 
the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate standards with i-espect 
to the terminal facilities of the carriers. We strongly endoi-se this 
provision, especially since many problems in the transportation of 
animals appear to be related to inadequate terminal facilities. 

Mr, Chairman, after my written te^imony was prepared we noticed 
a possible inadvertence iii S. 1941. The bill "would include air carriers 
in the definition of dealers wlio must be licensed by the Secretary 
of Agriculture. Tliis provision does not appear in S. 2070 or S. 2430. 
We do not believe that requiring air carriers to be licensed as dealers 
by the Secretarv of Agriculture would promote the stated objectives 
of this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, the Board sincerely appreciates this opportunitv to 
present its views on S. 1941. S. 2070, and S. 2430. 

Senator WEirKER. Thank you very much. Miss ICent. 

The point that you i-eferred to was a drafting error and something 
that we intend to correct in the legislation. 

You may have heard T)r. Chaloux from the TTSDA suggest that 
in lieu of Federal legislation other alternatives to assure humane treat- 
ment of animals in transit should be explored. Among these were 
reliance on the voluntary cooiK-ration of those groups involved in 
animal transportation, cooperation among the Federal agencies in- 
volved, and reliance on the recommondiitions leceived in these recent 
hearings. 

In your view, could the employment of one or all of these alter- 
natives substitute for Federal legislation on this matter? 

Miss Kent. Well, generdlv. the T'^SDA would appear to rely chiefly 
on voluntary cooperation. I'm not sure that reliance on voluntary 
cooperation is very effective in correcting abuses in this area. The 
suggestion does, however, reflect a great belief in the goodness of 
human nature. Of course, if everybody did the right thing there 
wouldn't be any need for legislation or anv kind of regulation by any 
agency. The fact is, however, that everybody does not do the right 
thing. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



53 

I have witli me the exhibits that the USDA presented in the CAB 
investigation. One of the exhibits is a report of Agriculture's monitor- 
ing of animal shipments at airports. There were 1^98 inspections 
made over a period of a year; 193 shipments were found to be in 
violation of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. 

Now, that may not sound like a large number, but the Idnd of viola- 
tions seen is significant, and it points up the need for regulation of per- 
sons who ship animals. The major violations were—and I'm reading 
here — inadequate cage construction, lack of identification or records, 
inadequate sanitation of cage, inadequate cage size, lack of water 
receptacles, lack of food receptacles, and holding area too cold, too hot, 
drafty, or lack of ventilation. 

Dr. Schwindaman, of the USDA, presented testimony in the case, 
and he said that violations of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act as 
well as other deficiencies involving inhumane treatment of live ani- 
mals liave dropped dramatically since Agriculture's monitoring pro- 
gram began, imtil only a few are still being observed. 

Now, that statement indicates to me the effectiveness of simply the 
presence and the appearance of authority. 

Incidentally, these exhibits also include a study made by the USDA, 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, dated May 1974, on 
the subject of environmental considerations for shipments of livestock 
by airfreight. The study covers areas that affect the health of livestock 
sudi as temperature, humidity, air movement, barometric pressure, 
ventilation rate, air quality, thermal shock, and the effects of other 
stress factors. This is the kind of research that the experts in the 
USDA are able to do, and it reflects the kind of expertise the CAB does 
not have. 

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the USDA has been very 
cooperative in taking part in the CAB investigation. But I must, add 
that the purpose of the Board's investigation is not merely to generate 
data for the purpose of issuing guidelines for voluntary cooperation. 

The proceeding is a formal investigation of the lawfulness of the 
carriers' rules that are in their tariffs under the Federal A'nation Act. 
If the Board ultimately finds any such rules to be unlawful, it will 
[xrescribe tihe lawful niles to be in the carriers' tariffs. 

Now, I dont say that all meetings of experts and other interested 
parties are not useful. In fact, during the coiirse of the Board's pro- 
ceeding and before the formal hearing was held, 11 working group 
sessions were held. These were attended by air carriers, humane society 
representatives, shippers, LTSDA representatives, and counsel for the 
Board's Bureau of Economics. These sessions were very productive in 
identifying what the problems are and proposing solutions, and some 
agreement was evidenced by the parties. 

However, no stipulations were agreed to by the parties to the case, 
and we proceeded into the formal hearing process. 

The CAB undertook this investigation because it appeared that no 
other agency was going to take any action. In the absence of any posi- 
tive law or regulation ny any Government agency, the carriers' tariff 
rules are the only existing law. As you know, a tariff is part of a con- 
tract between the carrier and the shipper, and in effect, the carrier 
must enforce the law against the sliipper in accordance with its own 
tariffs. 



Digitized byGoOglC 



■ 54 m 

JB Although the Board does not have specific authority uor the exper- ^t 
tise to issue Board regulations governing the transportation of animals,' H 
it does have the authority to investigate the carriei's' tariff rules, and' ^| 
if it finds them unlawful, to order them to be changed. That's what? B 
the Board's investigation is about. ■ H 

I might add that the Board's jurisdiction to make findings of law- H 
fulness based on considerations of safety of the animals was challenged! ^M 
by the Department of Transportation, DOT's position in the case was ^B 
that the CAB has no jurisdiction over animal safety and that the 
regulation of safety in flight is in the exchisive jurisdiction of the 
FAA, However, since the FAA has not issued any regulations regard- 
ing safe transportation of animals, the carriers' tanffs still remain 
the only existing law. 

Senator Wbickf-r. And accordingly, in your opinion, that is not 
adequate ? 

Miss Kent, Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. To achieve the end which is desired here in these 
hearings to provide a system, a set of regulations that will guarantee 
it ? In other words, the tariff system is not adequate ? 

Miss Kent. That is correct, and for the reasons that I stated pre- 
viously. The Board has no authority ovei' shippers, for example, m\H 
no expertise and personnel for enforcement. i 

Senator Weicker. I want to commend the CAB for going ahea^ 
and holding its hearings and supplying the investigation into thW 
matter because certainly the facts that will come forth will weigh) 
heavily on any legislation which is devised by tliis committee. 

I'm sorry l' don't have your statement in front of me. When dff 
you expect to have a final report from the CAB on those hearinga|l| 

Miss Kent. As I said, the briefs to the administrative law judgij 
were jiist filed on Monday. Reply briefs are supposed to be filed oa^ 
December 1. After that, the administrative law judge will issue hig 
initial decision, and the Board after that has the right to review tha^ 
decision upon the parties' filing petitions for review. It can adopt the 
administrative law judge's decision or it can order briefs and oral 
arguments to the Boaixl, and then the Board makes its final decisioDL 

Senator WEirKER. I have no furtlier questions at this time, Misff 
Kent. If you would be good enough also to stand by here, as we havs? 
several of the panels appear, in case there are any questions that arisft' 
that I can refer to you. I would appreciate it very much, \ 

Miss Kent. Tliank vou. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Thank you. J 

Now, the first panel consists of Fay Brisk, who I spent some tiiM 
with at the REA facility a while back: Christine Stevens — Mr& 
Stevens, it's nice to have you here, too. First of all. Fay Brisk is 
director of airport activities. Washington Humane Society; and 
Christine Stevens is secretary' for the Society for Animal Protective 
Tjegislation ; Duncan Wright, president, American Dog Owners' 
Association: Joan Blue, president. American Horse Protective Asso- 
ciation. Could all four of you step up to bat here and form the iianeljC 
I'd appreciate it. 

Ms. Benkin. I'm Priscilla Beukin. Mr. Wright's assistant. 

Senator Weicker. Welcome. I think the best thing to do is t^ 
allow each one of yon to make a statement, if you will ; and if we havj^ 
some questions, we will propound them to you. I might ad^ 



cbyGoogIc 



55 

if you have any questions which would be directed to either the 
UfflDA, tile CAB, or FAA, if you will address the question 
tiirough me, I will be glad to see that we get some sort of a 
dialog going here. I think it's awfully important. It's obvious to 
me just from what we have heard so far that we have got a matter 
of major concern which certainly grows greater in importance every 
day that's just falling between the cracks in the bureaucracy and 
nothing is being done, and I don't think there's any one of us just as 
a matter of commonsense that doesn't understand what this means 
with the increase in animal ownership and the whole concept of buying 
and selling animals of all types and sorts. So we will try to get as 
many answers as we can from you and, also, if you have any ques- 
tions for the responsible Federal agencies or at least those that touch 
upon the subject. 

With thalt, why don't I turn it over to you. Fay, why don't you go 
ahead and start. 

STATEHEHT 07 FAT BBISK, DTRECTTOR OF AIKFOBT ACTIVITIES, 
WASHIKOTOH HTTHANE SOCIETT 

Mrs. Brisk. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my 
name is Fay Brisk, and I'm director of aiiport activities for the 
Washington Humane Society. I'm going to summarize my statement 
very briefly and present the entire statement for the record. 

Senator Weicker, Go ahead, and we will include the entire state- 
ment in the record. 

Mrs. Brisk. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of 
humane treatment of animals in transport — especially before the chair- 
roan who visited our "animalport" at Washington National Airport 
to witness conditions at first hand. We certainly want to thank the 
chairman for that. 

Senator Weicker. I'll tell you, I wish it were still in existence 
tiiere because Dr. Chaloux and I would have paid you a visit there 
tonight. I don't know at the present time — and I don't want to inter- 
mpt you — I gather the various animals arrive at the respective air 
terminals of each one of the airlines rather than in a central location. 
b that ri^tl 

Mrs. Brisk. Yes, sir, they do; and we do have some volunteers who 
are going around to the various airfreight terminals in the evening 
to make sure that there are no animals left overnight and the animals 
have sufficient care. 

Senator Weicker, What would happen if somebody went down there 
Qowf What would they find? A similar situation to what we saw 
except dispersed throughout the airport? 

Mrs. Brisk, They would be dispersed, yes. 

Senator Weicker. Well, what are you doing tonight, Dr. Chaloux t 
You might have to walk a little more than by going to one centralized 
fecility, but I'll tell you it's the fastest way to make a point. Go ahead. 

Mrs. Brisk. Senator, I do want to say that there are not that many 
animals at these individual air terminals at night because the^ are now 
sending most of their animals to kennels or to Alexandria animal 
shelters where they stay overnight, so we have managed to get that 
much improvement down there. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



56 

We shall comment briefly on the bills under considenition. They all 
have merit, but S. 2070 has also been deferred to the Committee on 
Agriculture and Forestry, and we are opposed to that as being too 
time consuming. "VVe like both S. 2430 and S. 1941 — particularly the 
emphasis on terminal facilities in S. 1941 — but we urge that an amend- 
ment be added to each to include the humane treatment of dogs used 
for hunting purposes. 

Both bills cover only those dogs that are already regulated by the 
fjaboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and the 1970 amendments 
to that act. This automatically excludes liunting dogs, because the 
ITSDA took administrative action to exclude them, even though USDA 
concedes that this was clearly not the intent of Congress. Coonhounde, 
foxhounds, beagles, blue ticks, and other hunting dogs represent a 
large percentage of the animal traffic. They are shipped every day of 
the year — not just during hunting season — and they are treated worse 
tlian any of the other animals we have seen in transit. We have de- 
scril>ed their plight at three congressional hearings. We do so again, 
with the plea that these dogs deserve equal protection under the law. 

We also recommend that a consumer's "right to be informed" pro- 
vision be included in section 11 of S. 1941 and section 11 of S. 2430. 

The fact that animals suffer in flight has been well documented by 
one of the FAA's own veteranarians. Dr. G. D. Hanneman, of the Civil 
Aeromedical Institute, Oklahoma City, Okla. 

Yet many airlines are telling pet owners that animals fly in "pas- 
senger comfort" — a comforting thought not exactly shared by their 
own cargo manuals. 

The pet owner who entrusts his dog or cat to an airline in the 
belief that it will have at least a safe — if not a pleasant — ioiimey, 
deserves the truth. He should be told that there are no special safe- 
guards in the luggage or cargo compai'tments of aircraft. He should 
be told that flying can be hazardous to his pet's health. 

The airlines can display this warning in their pamphlets and at 
all airline freight and passenger terminals. And if they refuse to 
do this voluntarily, then the Secretary of Transportation should re- 
quire, them to do it in much the same manner that the Surgeon General 
requires the cigarette companies to print their warnings on advertise- 
ments on cigarette packs. This will .lerve the purpose until humane 
standards are adopted. 

Now. I iusf want to briefly comment on a sui-vev made by the 
USDA. While we appreciate the eiforts made by USDA inspectors 
(hampered as they are by lack of funds), we don't think the USDA 
inspectors spent enough time at the airports to make the survey mean- 
ingful. To give the subcommittee an idea of what conditions are like 
at one major airport. I shall briefly describe what has taken place at 
Washington National Airport. 

During the peak of our activities — from 1972-75 — onr "animal- 
port" volunteers worked an average of 100 man-hours a week, com- 
pared with an average of 10 man-hours bv the USDA inspector. We 
serviced shipments from more than 100 USDA-lieensed shippers alone. 
At least one-third of these shippers were, at some time or another, 
or repeatedly, in violation of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, 
as ainended---violationfi we repeatedly reported to USDA, 



Digitized byGoOglC 



57 

Now that the EEA is out of the picture, we will concentrate on 
the airlines which have all the business, but we don't think we should 
continue indefinitely to subsidize the airlines in their multimillion- 
dollar transport business, especially since they charge a premium rate 
for animals. Anyone paying a premium rate has a right to expect 
and certainly should get a little extra service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Senator Weicker. Thank you very much. Fay, and I want to say 
as a matter of personal applause that you and the people that work 
with you do indeed put in great numbers of hours at no pay and 
nothing but the satisfaction of taking care of an animal, and I think 
your last point is well taken. The airlines seem to collect the money, 
but you people seem to go ahead and do the work. 

Mrs. Brisk. Thank you, sir. 
[The statement follows:] 



Mr. Chairman and Members of tbe Subcommittee : My name Is Fay Brisk, and 
I'm the IMrector of Airport Acdvltles for the Washington Humane Society. I 
appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of humane treatment of animals 
In transport — especially before the Chairman who visited our "animalport" at 
Washington National Airport to witness conditions at Qrst hand. We certainly 
want to thank the Chairman for that. 

We shall comment briefly on the bills under consideration : Tliey all have merit. 
I)ut S.2O70 has also l>een deferred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 
and we ate opposed to that as being too time consuming. We like both S.2430 and 
8.1&41— particularly the emphasis on terminal facilities in S.1931 — but we urge_ 
that an amendment be added to -^ach to Include the humane treatment of dogs' ' 
nsed for hurting purposes. 

Botii bills cover only those Aags that are already regulated by the Laboratory 
Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and the 1970 Amendments to that Act. This auto- 
matically excludes hunting dogs — because the U.S. Dei>artment of Agriculture 
took administrative action to exclude them — even though TTS'DA concedes that 
this was clearly not the intent of Congress." Coonhounds. foxhounds, l)eaRles. 
■Uue ticks and other hunting dogs represent a large percentage of the animal 
traffic. They are shipped every day of the year — not just during hunting season — 
and they are treated worse than nny of the other animals we have seen in transit. 
These dogs have actually been shipped with diseases raneing from diagnosed 
cases of chorea (last stages of distemper) to infectious hepatitis and mange. 
Many have infected eyes and ears and are Infested with ticlis. Their crates are 
frequently makeshift, poorly -ventilated and lackiuB in bedding and water con- 
tainers. We have seen tliem in airline warehouf<es, crying and whimpering vtitli 
the need to relieve themselves after having i>een cooped up for 24 hours or longer. 
i7e described their plight at three previous Congressional hearings. We do so 
again wWh the plea that these dogs deserve equal protection under the law. 

We also recommend that a ''right to Iw informed" provision be included In 
Section 11 of S. 1941 and Section 11 of S. 2330. 

The fact that animals suffer in flight has been well documented by one of the 
F'ederal Aviation Administration's own veterinarians, Dr. G. D. Hanneman. of 
the Civil Aeromedlcal Institute. Oklahoma City, Okla. Dr. Hanneman writes : 

"IBecanse an animal does not die or show outward signs of lilnesn when stressed 
by environmental conditions does not mean it Is in the tiest of health. Jnst hecanse 
an animal Is able to tolerate such conditions as temperature, humidity, varying 
COi levels, noise, confinement, reduced air flow (air changes) and total darkness 
rather than light does not mean the animal i.f being treated humanely or 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



58 



iXet, many airlinei) are tellng pet. owneta that animals fly In "passenger com- 
brt" — a comCortliig thought not exactly shared by their own cargo roannala!*- 

The i>et owner who entrustH lils dog or cat to an airplane in tbe belief tbat { 
it will have at least a safe — ir not pleasant — Journey, deserves the tnili. 

He should be told that there are no special safeguards in the luggage or ce 
compartments of aircraft. 

He should be told that dying can he hazardous to his pet's health. 

The airlines can display thin warning In their pamphlets and at all airline I 
freight and passenger terminals. And if they refuse tn do this voluntarily, then ] 
the Secretary of Transportation shonlil require them to do it In much the samS' i 
manner that the Surgeon General reuuirea the cigarette companies to print their 1 
warnings on advertisements and cigarette packs. This will serve thp pnrpoaf. | 
until humane standards are adopted. 

We base this and other recommend a tiona on letters and telephone calls ? 
have been receiving from pet owners over the past three years and on our expe^ I 
rience with animals in transit at Washington National Airport. It is becaus4 J 
of what we have witnessed there that we talie exception to the finding of iff J 
recent survey taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at 15 major alrportv, r 
The survey covers n total of 8.-576 man-hours frnm .Inly 1, 1974 throngh June 30, 
1975. during which time USDA inspectors said they observed 193 shipments 
that were In violation of tbe Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, as amended, and 
reported that "all live animal shipments were observed." * 

While we appreciate the efforts made by USDA Inspectors (hampered as 
they are by lack of funds), we don't think the USDA inspectors spent ennu^ 
time at the airports to make the survey meaningful. To give the Subcommittee m 
an idea of what conditions are like at one major airport, I shall briefly descrlti^ J 
what has taken place at Washington National Airport- ^ 

During the peak of our activities — from 1972-197.1— our "animalport" voluii^ J 
teers worked an overage of 100 man-hours a week, compared with an averagdl 
of 10 man-hours by the T'SDA inspector. We serviced shipments from more thnf|l 



100 TISDA-licensed shippers alone. At least one-third of these shippers wemfS 
" 1 violation of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Ae^fl 



B time or another, i 



as amended— TinlnHon-t! we reppntedly reported tn I'SDA, 

It was not unusual for us to remain at the airi>ort nntll one or two a-n 
More than .10 men and women contributed their services to feed and water sl 
the animals, walk tbe big dogs, change the bedding in the crates, admlniat^ 
first aid and see to it that sick animals were taken to a veterinarian. Tb 
volunteers included retired Navy captains, registered nurses, a Canadian vete^i L 
narian. an airline pilot and employees of the Defense Department. Fedenu'l 
Aviation Administration, the CIA and other government agencies, as well BSB 
housewives. ■ 

Many of the animals we saw were .=ipk. dead or in generally weak condition^ I 
as a result of poor crating (puppies, cats, wildlife, etc., stuffed Into lettnck^ 1 
crates, badly -ventilated plastic crates or cardboard boxes), mlsrontlng. sloi^l 
pickups and deliveries or just plain negligence on the part of airline and a*^ 
express personnel. 

We saw at least 500 animals a week, not counting the birds and laborato^ 
mice (of which there were tens of thousands). Yet, because we were a part-tin* 
operation, we did not see (hem all. The t.iSDA inspector, because of his 
tight schedule, saw even leas. He was at the airport one day or night a 
He lnai)ected only animals from USDA-licensed shippers, which left e 
many uninspected (particularly hunting dogs). We seldom saw him al 
p.m,. the time the last — and usually the largest — commercial puppy shlpmeld 
arrived from tbe midwest. In short, he could not possibly have observed " 
live animal shipments," as the survey indicates. Rut there Is no doubt that h 
presence helped. We have seen some improvement In commercial puppy s 
ments. and we hoiie USDA inspections will continue. 

Our exr>eirience, however, has «d)own that only a new law— properly enforp 
will bring about the rerorms we have all beai seeking since the plight of aniniaH| 
In transit was brought to light. 



rBft. Be Alert To P 



n with sltpppTj. rouni 
Bt aft bulk cDinpartnie' 
;e this Is In vipw of p 



cbyGoOl^li 



ea 

Need for humane legislation was appBJ'cnt at tbree International airports wt> 
have infqieoted. Nowbere, however, bas the need been more apparent tban at 
WasbJAgton Natiimal Airport, where a lawful means already eitsta to provide 
hmnBDe care for animals, but Is virtuallr Impossible to Implement 

milfl "lawful meanfi" is contaliwd In Hie terms of a lease Ixrtwoen the Federal 
Goveramient (The Federal Aviation Administration) and Uts tenants (the air- 
Unes). The lease tqicei^es that the tNiiants must CMuply, at their "own cost and 
esjiense," wiWi all Federal, state or local laws. This Includes the Vli^nla antl- 
vmetij law, which cwvers hmnane transpoirt. Yet, the lease has bad little or no 
effect In preventing Incidents such as the following : 

A eti-jear-old, 110-Ib. Northern cougar, traveling on a New York State cttdaO' 
gered q^iedes permit to Florida, wae kept Ln her airless, cofflo-Uke crate In a hot 
hangar tor Ave honoirs on a day when temiperatures soared Into the 90^ The 
water (dpe leading into the crate was too narrow and Tusty to be usable. The 
lofllde of tlie crate was lined with wlree, which the cougar bore and twisted try- 
ing to get out, 'lacerating her paws in the struggle. 

'lAte In the afternoon, the nankp -manager decided not to send the cougar to 
Florida. Instead, be hauled her to another airline wairebouse where she was 
Stranded for the night. A Washington Humane Society volunteer called the 
National Zoo, which sent a repreoeotatlve to pick up the cougar at 9:30 p.m. 
Bie congar remained in the Zoo hospital for several days. 'She did not survive. 
Sbe died oC bronchial pneumonia last Hay 20, the day after she was re-crated by 
the Zoo and fftiipped to Florida. (We have the original orate and irfctures of tt). 

A toy poodle shipped from North Dakolta to Na*ville, Tenn., was found locked 
la a dark, stuITy closet in an airport warehouse. "Anlmalport" volunteers heard 
U crying. When they rescued the 'puppy. they saw that Us orate wae crushed, It 
was llmq) with eThaustlon, and It was badly Ln need oif water. Freight handlers 
admitted that the puppy had been hidden so that the volunteers wouldn't see 
the crashed crate. 

On 'Sunday, November 2, a beagle from El Paso. Texas, was found on an 
airport ramp, bowling with pain. He had caught tiis teeth In the wire meah win- 
dow of bJs crate, trying to get out. Hia Jaw was bleeding. The ramp manager 
came to Ms aid wilft a wire cutter, then called the Alexandria shelter, which 
■ent a driver to pick him up. At the shelter. It was o4>vlous why the dog was still 
bowling and why he was still in pain. He had been sitting In ttiat crate in an 
airline warehouse since 6 :30 p.m. the day before — and all he wanted was to 
reUeve himself ! But no one had bothered to take him out. 

lliese and countless other case« of negligence have been reported to FAA. But 
there la little doubt that the animals will continue to suffer until there Is a new 
FMeral law to force the airlines to treat them humanely. 

We lioiw (bat we will Lave that new law very soon, Mr. Chairman. Great 
Britain has had one since 1S73. It inftnodoces a number of general measures to 
safeguard animals during atr, sea, road and rail transport. Both S. 2430 and 
S. IMl do the same, of course, and it is time we had all those safeguards. While 
we have focused our testimony <hi air travel, we have not been oblivions to the 
animals we have seen loaded into airport tmcks that have no air vemte, are not 
air conditioned In the summer nor heated In the winter, l^ese trucks otiea travel 
long difltancea Into the miral areas. 

Now that REIA Air Express is out of the picture, we shall be able to observe 
mote tru<A transport, while still coatlnuing to care lor the animals shipped 
directly via the airlines, which will now have all the business. But we hope Uiat 
wmi't be necessary after humane legislation Is passed and enforced. We don't 
think we should continue Indefinitely to subsidize the airlines In their multi- 
miIll<Hi dollar trauBport business, especially slDce they charge a premium rate for 

a little extra aervice ! 

Senator Weickek. Why dont we just continue on the statements 
here and then we'll get back to the questions. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



to 

? 

to 



^STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE STEVENS, SECKETARY. SOCIETY FOE 
LL ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION 

P"- Mrs, Stevens. We oeptninly apprecint* your going and inspecting 
conditions and we hope yon will go and inspect conditions in labora- 
tories because those, of course, come under the Animal Welfare Act 
and in my testimony, which I would submit for the record — and it'.s 
much too long to cover entirely — ^we do suggest some closing of loop- 
holes in the present law in addition to the very excellent proposal tliat 
yon have to cover the animals in transit by air. 

I liave analyzed the points that I think are best in these diffeienl 
bills and I think that's most necessary to go into. Is it, or would you 
like me to 

Senator WEirKER. Yes ; why don't yon indicate, rather than an anal- 
ysis of the bills, what ai-e some of the points that you would like to 
see- in the laboratory sense incorporated into the bill? That I'd vert 
much 1 i ke to hear. ^ 

Mrs. Stevens. Fine. Well, first of all, we feel that the requirem^ 
for exercise has been neglected most seriously. Many laboratories— 
in fact, probably the majority now let laboratory dogs out of cages or 
else keep them in pens or runways where there is no need for them to 
be released because there's enough room. However, there is a certiiiiJ 
number of laboratories which refuse to do that and which perpetual' 
cage dogs. 

The USDA has attempted to pi-omulgate regulations on this subjoL 
uiore than once. At the present time there are jiroposed regulatioira 
pending which have been pending for more than a year. Pressure from 
those laboratories which do not wish to change or indeed even plan to 
build new qnartei-s in which they will not release dogs from cages has, 
unfortunately, succeeded in preventing the final regidations from ever 
being promulgated by the TJSDA, and for that reason the Society for 
Animal Protective Legislation proposes that the woi-d "exercise" sim- 
ply !» added to the reqnii-ements specifically. Although the Secretarv 
of Agriculture has that authority at present, it is not as specific as " 
could be and it would enable those regulations to become final. ^ 

I have an analysis of 711 form letters opposing exercise for laboiw 
tory dogs which you might he. interested in. 

Senator Weicker. If you will submit those for the record along wilfi | 
your statement that would be fine. I 

[The following information was subsequently i-eceived for tljK'l 
record :] 

Summary of 711 Form Letters Oppobisq Exercise mn Laburatohy DoobT' 

fi.l form lettrm 'beginnlni; "I n*o«ld like to take tliis '>]iiK)rtuntty to expFesB a 

opqwsiMon . . ." mostly signed wHhout ^vln^ any address. One lrtt«-r ( 

signed by Dr. Herbert Jcdinson of Kalnmaoito, MicdiiROn. 
IS form leltKri bpfrtnnlng "I am writing tn express nty oipixfflitioii to . . ." sij 

by employees of Smith, Kline and Prenrti Ijabntntortfu. 
iO form letterit lieglnnlng "As im Individual Involved In scientific research . 

fdpied 1)j neople eivine addreisses In New Jersey. Pennsylvania and DelawnN 

One iienon signed as an employee of Smith, Kline and French. 
li form letters lieglnning "I hare jnst receivied and read a cojiy of tlie pro. 

Tides . . ." All weire on Neiv York Unlversify Medical Center letterti^ad. 
60 form letter* l)^nnine "While I recognize tiie ponatnietive and pnsitive effec 

the Animal Welfare Art of 1970 has had in Improving airimal welfare, I i 



Digitize. bvGoOglt 



stpongly opposed to the . . ." signed, by profesiscirs alt tlie University lyf Roches- 
ter, New York. 
2o form tellers beginning '"nie proposed regulations to fhe Animal Wetfiare Act 
as published in . . ." all on New York Hoaipltal-Oomeli Medical Center 
letterhead, 

25 form letters beginning "I am OCT»sed to the proposed Veterinary Care, 
'Space . . ." all on irndversMy of Rochester letterhead. 

58 form letters beginning "The law ) PL 91-579) is more than adequate in insur- 
ing proper eare . . ." signed by people giring Texas addresses. 17 of these were 
on University of Texas letterhead. 

12S form letters l>eglnning "The iweeent law (PL 91-579) is adequate in that it 
insures . . ." signed Ity people giving Texas addresses. 13 of these were on 
University of Texas letberliead. 

95 form letters beginning "I am writing to express my concern regarding the pro- 
ixtaed . . ." ^gned by pei^>le giving inoouiplete or Texas addresses. 54 of these 
•wttre on Universitj of Texas ledterhead. 

3i form letters saying "I oppose anj' changes to PL 91-S71> due to the extensile 
cost to the taspajBTS." (Quoted in ilM enitlret)'.) Signed by peoqite giving Texas 
addresses. S were on Univer^ty of Texas lebtei'liead. 

4 form letters beginmng "As a meiuber of the biomedical research oomninulty of 
ITieUniversity of Texas at Austin . . ." 

28 form letters begimiing "I object to the proposed Veterinary, Care, Space and 
Bxejxrise, . . ." signed by laboratory technicians gi^-lng no address and no name 
of reeparch facility. 

26 form lettcrn beginning "The Deiwrtmeitt of Agriculture, through its animal 
^-elfare regulations, has done much to upirrade the conditions under which ani- 
mals are hoiised ajid used . . ." signed by insfple ^vlng Wasiiinglon (state) 
addresses. 

9 form letters l^eginnlng "I would like to rejJy to Hie proposed regulations . . ." 

all on University of Georgia letterhead, 
i form letters beginning "I strongly oiipose . . ," all on University of Alabama 

letterhead. 
Zi form letters beginning "The biological and biomedical teaching and research 

c<Nnjnunl'ty of tJris Univerwty oi^Kwes the amendments to . . ." all on Ohio 

iState University letterhead. 
SO form letters beginning "In my judgment the proposed ameniLuients to the r^u- 

lations . . ."' iniistly on JIaji) Clinic and Foundation letterhead. 2 were on 

American College of Laborafiiry Animal Meddcine letterhead. Se\'eral para- 

graiyhfl In this letter are identical to iMuagrapliS in the preceding letter from 

Ohio Stdite University. 
3 form letters Iveginning "I am writing to iprotest tlie proposed changes of the 

Animal Welfare Act . . ." all on Thomas Jefferson University letterhead. 

5 form letters l>eginnlng "I opt»o«e the jiroiMjsed VeterinaTy Care . . ," on G. D. 
Searle and Oomiiany letterhead. 

3 form letters beginning "I am rigonmsly oj^wised to the ..." on Georgetown 

UniverMty 8(-hi»iH of Medicine and Dentistry letterhead. 
7 form letters beginning "1 am, opposed to the proitosed . . ." on Cooper Lahora- 

tories letterhead. 

Mrs. Stevens. Now, in addition, tliere is a great deal of question 
about tha effectiveness of the laws so far in preventing theft of animals. 
This theft would not necessarily be entii^ly for laboratories; never- 
theless, it could be for that or for the guard dog trade, pet trade, for 
hunting dogs, and it is important that, again, the Department take 
strong action to pre^'cnt this continued tlieft and I would like to sub- 
mit for the use of the committee material provided by Mary Warner of 
Berryville. She's made a map showing the numbers of animals that 
have disappeared witliin a period of the last couple of years in her 
area and eveiy one of those "X"s is a dog that has gone. There are some 
very queHtionable activities going on in this area. It is under investi- 
gation by the Stat« at present, but the difficulty is that whenever rashes 
of dog theft occur, if there's too much pressure, all the dealers do id 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



62 

move to another location, tuid that's why it's so important that Fedei-al 
lemslation addreiss it. 

There is another problem whioh we don't know if you can address 
in the legislation or if you can recommend to tlie various Government 
agencies. That is, that although all Government agencies must adhere 
to the humane standards promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture 
for the treatment of animals in laboratories, tOiere is no means of 
enforcing this and repeatedly it has been found that terrible conditions 
exist in Government laboratories and that in fact they are violating 
the Animal Welfare Act. Tliese conditions are found only by vohm- 
tary humane organizations going in and seeing the laboratories and 
there's no way that that type of inspection can be even remotely 



Just recently, you may have read of the beagles at Edgewood Arse- 
nal. After the inspections were made the Army requested the USDA 
to come in and inspect and see whether in fact they were in violation 
or not, and they were tremendously. They had a whole series of viola- 
tions— ^lack of sanitation, improper construction of the cages et cetera. 
The cage floors for some of the beagles were just like the find of grills 
that you cook steak on and the dogs had nothing to lie on. This is the 
type of thing tliat's so obvious that you can hardly believe tfliat a big 
Government department would allow such things to go on, hut unfor- 
tunately they do. 

I would really put it befoi-e you as a committee to find the best way 
to deal with this. In otiier words, if the agencies themselves 'had to 
report, as private institutions do, telling what the conditions were and 
that they were living up to the standards and had a system of inspec- 
tion and also reporting annually on the numbers of animals used in 
which pain-relieving drugs wei* not administered when painful pro- 
cedures were inflicted on animals, this would be very much to be 
desired and it certainly was the intent of the legislation as originally 
passed, and I think it was unanimous in the Senate. 

Senator Weicker. HHiat you're saying basically is that the U.S. 
Government itself is one of the greatest offenders in this area? 

Mrs. Ste\-ens. We don't have enough data to say that it's one of 
the greatest oflfenders, but we have so many instances which you can 
read in the testimony that there's reason to think that — you may be 
correct, that may indeed be, because inspection is not being made at 
present in those laboratories and we know that enormous improve- 
ments took place in universities and research institutions after the 
law came into effect and there was inspection. 

Senator Wficker, This statement and any accompanying docu- 
ments will be included in their entirety for the record, too. 

Mrs, Stevens. Fine, because I realize the pressure of time. I would 
like to add. and this is getting out of the laboratory area, in addition 
to the hunting dogs on which we heartily agree with Fay, other work- 
ing dogs should also be included. For example, guard dogs are very 
much in need of similar protection and we would hope would be 
included. 

Also, and T believe this has been approved in the House subcom- 
mittee, there is an excellent section in S. 811 which was recently passed 
by the Senate to strengthen the Horse Protection Act, which makes a 
provision for much more rapid action against offenders and I won't 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



63 

read it because of the time, but it's in my testimony, and it would 
help in all acroes-tlie- board enforcement of the legislation. 

I think tliat I should stop simply because of time requirements. 

Senator Weicker. I appreciate very much your making the effort 
and we're going to get back to a further discussion, but let me just 
get through with the initial statements here. 

[The statement follows:] 

STATEME^T OF ChBISTINE STEVENH. SECRETARY. SOCIETY FOB ASIMAI, PROTECTIVE 

Leo 



Excellent provisions for the welfare of anlmalB are found in the tbree bills 
pending before the Committee, S. 1941. S. 2070 and S. 2430. We hope tlie l*st 
provlsionR can be combined and that other needed amendments to close existlnit 
loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act will be adopted. 

In comparing the bills, I would note certain points In which they differ and 
indicate which proviaions we consider to be anperlor. 

To t>egin witli S. 1&41, this bill lists "air pressure" among minimum require- 
ments (lines 20 and 21. p. 6). This is desirable and should be included in the hill 
reported by the Committee. The penalties are htgher in S. 1941 than in the other 
bills, namely, $2,000 for each violation with each day of violation constltutinK 
ft separate offense. Guidance to the Secretary is well expressed In determining 
the amount of the penalty including "any history of prior offenses" which should 
be helpful in ending repeated offenses (lines W, 16, 17 and 23. p. fl). Also In 
the area of enforcement, a valuable provision of S. 1941 states that "It shall be 
the duty of U.S. attorneys to prosecute all criminal violations of this Act reported 
by the Secretary and to initiate civil actions to recover all civil penalties assessed 
and reported by the Secretary, or which come to their notice or knowledge by 
other means" (p. 8, linesl8-24). 

S. 1941 specifles that humane standards apply to terminal facilities (p. 6, 
lines 3 and 4, and p. 7, line 17). This Is another desirable provision. 

Finally, S. 1941 includes birds and pet shops in its coverage. We believe it is 
Important to inclu.de birds to eliminate bad transport conditions for them. The 
Secretary has the power to include birds in the existing Animal Welfare Act but 
has not yet done so. We understand that at least part of the reason Is lack of 
fnnds for enforcement. However, we do not believe that any great additional 
burden would occur by Including birds since inspectors would see them when 
they saw other animals without having to make additional trips for inspection 
purposes. USDA is already actively involved through its quarantine procedures 
with birds coming into the country. We believe specifying the coverage of birds 
Is desirable. 

With respect to pet shops, however, much as we would like to see them Indi- 
vidually inspected and all brought up to at least minimum standards, we would 
hesitate to recommend inclusion of this very great Increase in man-hours given 
available funding. Animals t>eing shipped to pet shops from wholesalers will be 
Included under S. 2070 and S. 2430. 

To turn to these bills' provisions which differ From S. 1941 in waj-s we believe 
to l>e superior, I would cite the following: 1| Health certificates are rec|uired, 
not left up to the discretion of the 'Secretary (.p. 5. lines ft and 10). 2) Tlie [wo- 
visions (p, S, lines 15-20) "Xo dogs or cats, or additional kinds or classes of 
animals designated by regulation of the Secretary shall be delivered hy any 
person to any intermediate handler or carrier for transqwrtation in commei'ce 
except to registered research facilities if they are less than eiciit weeks of age, 
or such other age as the Secretairy may by regulation prescribe." fully covers 
all contingencies while keeping this important provision in the "shall" rather 
than "may" category. 3) The provision t» guard against abuses in C.O.D. shiiv 
ments (p. 6, lines 3-13) Ls essential. 4) The provisions (pi». 9-12) outlawing 
"animal fighting ventures" are necessary. We urge tJiat all these renuirements 
contained in S. 2070 and S. 2430 be included in the bill approi-ed by the 
Oonunittee. 

To close existing loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act, the following suggea- 
tlons are submitted : 



Digitized byGoOglC 



64 

(1) In the excellent bill S. 811 reoeaitly reported by tMs CMnmittee and 
passed by tlie Senate to strengthen. tJie Horse Protection Act a helitfnl provisiou 
is included whieh could be adapted to the Animal Welfare Act to impTove the 
Department of Agriculture's enforcemeat capaJ)Uitiea. Section 18(c) of the Act 
should be amended to include the following: "Au actioD. against dealers, exhibi- 
tors, research faoiliticfi, and operators of auction sales may be brought before 
an; Unlbed States magistrate in the diatilct oouit of the United States in any 
judicial district in which such person is found, and such magistrate shall have 
Jurisdiction to hear and dwrfde such action." 

(2) Requirement tiat laboratory dogs 'be given opportunity for daily exer- 
cise, by amending the Act to insert the word "exercise" in 'Section 14 as follows : 
"Such standards sliall include minimuiu requirements with respect to liandling, 
housing, feeding, iwaterlng, exercise, sanitation, ventilation . . .' 

(3) 'Because hunting and other working dogs moving In comimprce are often 
shipt>ed under substandard conditions, tfaey should be included. The words 
"hunting and other woirklng" should be inserted in the definition of "dealer" and 
of "animal" and throughout the Act wherever required to ensure coverage. 

In addition Ui these suggested amendments, we would appredate any help the 
Committee could give to encourage stronger administrative action by the Secre- 
tary of Agriculture 90 that a higher ipriority is placed on complaints and vi^rfa- 
tions of the Animal Welfare Act and increased personnel and funding i>e 
requested. 

We would also emfdiasizc the fact that dogs continue to be stolen for com- 
mercial pnpposes and that increiased enforcement is nrg'Mitly needed in tbis part 
of the exlsftng law. The regulaJtions could be changed to require photographic 
identification <if each dog and cat sold to random source dealers for resale. Uie 
license plate of the car. or in the absence of a car, the 'Social Security card of 
the iierscins offering tie andmals for sale should also be part of the record. Such 
epeclfie identification would offer Bul)stantial digoouragement to thieves and 
TFOuld facilitate prosecution of violators. 

In closing, I would draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that, 
although the Animal Welfare Act requires government agencies using animals 
to adliere to the same minimum standards as the private research facilities 
registered under the Act. no mechanism esists to enforce these standards, and 
ao inspection is provided. Over the years occasional inspection by voluntary 
organizations has shown that government agencies are not well informed about 
the requirements of the Act. Case after ease of violations in government labora- 
tories show that the iaw is not working in this large area. 

To cite a recent example, when humane groups visited the beagles and other 
laboratorj animals at Edgewood Arsenal, they complained to the Army of the 
violations they observed. As a result, the Army requested an official inspection 
by U.S.D.A.'s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Under the Freedom 
of Information Act, I requested and obtained copies of the completed inspection 
forms. They showed multiple violations of the Act by the Army including de- 
ficiencies in all of the following categories: sanitation, ventilation, interior 
surfaces, storage of food and bedding, housekeeping, jiest control, heating and 
temperature. Notes by the inspectors show that the most elementary require- 
ments were not being met in instance after instance by the Army— for example, 
"Interior surfaces cannot be sanitized. Walls provide harborage for insects, 
rodents, and other pests." Some of the beagles were housed on widely spaced 
metal grids only Vi» of an inch wide with no flat surface even to sleep on < These 
are the types of grates used over subways in New York City. A dog on leash 
avoids even stepping on these once he has felt their discomfort to his paws. 

Hosiug was carried out without even removing the animals ! Such deplorable 
failure to provide the simplest comforts for animals the Army claitm it has to 
use cannot be left to the exceedingly rare visits made by humane organizations. 
Nor is this an Isolated example of violations of the law by government agencies. 
Last year the Army issued a "Fact Sheet" stating that it was housing eight 
adult beasles In nineteen square feet of space, and it claimed that this incredible 
overcrowding complied with all standards thus demonstrating that it was not 
even familiar with them. After receiving some irate letters, it hastily got up a 
new "Fact Sheet" expanding the size of the quarters. However, there is no way 
for the Congress or the public to be sure whether the quarters were expanded 
on i>ai>er only or in real fact since there is no source of information except tie 
Army's own information service. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



65 

To give a few examples of Tiolations by government laboratories to past years, 
I quote from a report on conditions at the U.S. Public Health Service hospital 
iu Staten Island in 1971 by Dorothy Dyee, Laboratory Animal Consultant of the 
Animal Welfare Institute: "no post-operative care for experimental animals. 
Complete lack of sanitation and floor drainage. The odor in the dog and rabbit 
rooms is intolerable. Dried fecal matter observed in empty food dish in dog- 
cage on both dajR .Tanuary 18 and 19). Waterbowls in rabbit cages are filthy 
and some contain fecal material. Dried fecal material encrusted on rabbit cages. 

"Large iiools of water on floor of smaller dog room and on floor of rabbit 
room. Improper drainage makes it Impossible for water to go into drains nnlesa 
It is swept into them. 

"Temperature in animal house cannot be controlled due to a faulty heating 
By«t^m. Hospital administratioii is aware of this deficiency. Some caged dogs are 
In a position next to a boiling radiator; others are near an open window and 
subjected to the cold ... 

"Record keeping is negligible . . . 

"Practice surgery is done on dogs by residents of St. Vincent's Hospitjil on 
Monday morning under unsterile conditions in a Sitliy room In the animal house, 
1 ■waa told by the caretaker that althon^ mosit of the dogs die, some live for a 
week or two. Residents of Doctor's Hospital have a similar arrangement, doing 
th^lT work on Wednesdays . . . [They] dont have a key to the animal house so 
they can come back to look after the dogs after hours." 

Ijack of the "adequate veterinary care" required by the Act is exemplified by 
remits on three of the dogs hou.'wd in metal cages with mesh floors'; "Dog in 
Cage #4 — A brown short-haii-ed mongrel dog. Surgery was done on her by Dr. 
Kinney on January 9th. Dog paralyzed In rear quarters since surger.v. Mr. Brown, 
the head caretaker, told me that be had called Dr. Kinney and told him about 
the paralyzed dog five days before my visit and nothing had been done. At my 
Buggestion, he called Dr. Kinney on Tuesday aftemoMi in my presence. Mr. 
Brown told him that an lnJ!4)eotor was there and wantwl to knoiv about the d*^. 
Dr. Kinney said that he had telephoned the veterinarian who, after examining 
the dog, recommended eutlianasia. I t«lei)honed Dr. O'Connor, the veterinary 
consultant, Tuesday niglit and she said she had never been consulted about this 
dos. 

"Dog in Cage #5 — A black short-haired mongrel dog. Sui^ery was done on her 
by Dr. Kinney on January 12th. When I saw her on Monday, Jan. 18th, she was 
lying in her cage and could not get up in answer to my calling her. On my return 
visit on Tuesday, Jan. 19th. she was worse. All attempts to get her on her feet 
failed. Mr. Thompson, Uie assistant caretaker, told Mr. Brown and nte that she 
had been like that for two days. At my snggestjon, Mr. Brown again called 
Dr. Kinney and advised him about the condition of this dog. Dr. Kinney said ho 
could not come to the animal house liecause he was busy and could not come on 
W€dne9day ibecause he would be doing exiierinientii all that day. He finally told 
Mr. Bpown Ito call the veterinarian. We tried reaching Dr, O'Connor but she was 
not available. Mr. Brown promiseil to call her that night. I telephoned Dr, 
CVOonnor on Tuesday, p.m. 'Slie had not heard fn>m Sir. Brown or Dr. Kinuey but 
prmoiaed me that she would check on the dos in themomJng. 

"Latter Ro()m for Housing Dogx — On 5Iy Monda.v visit, I saw a large black 
and tan German Sheiiherd which had been used for a surgical exiieriinent that 
morning. Under anesthesia, the dog was left in the care of Mr. TTiompson, the 
assistant caretaker. Althoni^b Mr. T1ionii>son had anesthetized the d'lg he did not 
know what he had used. Showing me the bottle in the prep room. I alw observed 
the heavy muzzle which he Irad used on the dog. The prep room was dii-fy and 
the adjoining ro-.na where the surgery was done was fllHiy." 

■On a return visit, Octolier 12, 1871, Mrs. Dyce found postoiserative care and 
sanitation greatly improved following invef<tigati!>n by Oie director of Federal 
Health Programs Service who stated, Marrh 3, 1071. ". , . ,vou may be assured 
that such corrective action as is necessa'ry to bring our laboratory up to Btand- 
arda will be effected imme<liately." 

The National Institutes of Health, too, has failed to meet the standards ac- 
cording to h\w with tiriuintcs kept in cages ko small that they were unable to 
make normal postural ad,1ustments as specified in the regulations. 

The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare was informed by letter 
January 9, 1970; "Animal Welfare Institute T.aboratory Animal Consultant, 
Dorothy Dyee, visited NIII rinarantine quarters January 6, 1970, and reports 
that a large proportion of the primates are currently housed in violation of 



Digitized byGoOglC 



P.L. 89-544 whose regulations state in part: '(1) Primary enclosures shall be 
constructed and maintained bo as to provide sufficient space to allow each non- 
human primate to make normal postural adjustments with adequate freedom 
of movement. (2) Each nonhuman primate housed in a primary enclosure shall 
be provided witli a minimum floor space equal to an area of at ieast tbree times 
ihe area occupied iiy such primate when standing on four feet.' 

"We are further greatly concerned that a proposed expenditure of 5190,000 
Tor new cages will not soive the problem since the prototype cage is only 26" 
Uighx21"x24". 

Turning to another government agency, the Veterans Administration, I would 
quote from an articie in The Detroit Free Press. May 28, 1967. "Kidnaped Coilie 
is Saved from Lab Eiperiments . . . Jim Shorter and hia family lost Thunder 
in February when the dog which never left his own backyard, which insisted 
on coming inside when it rained, which whined like a baby even when he wasn't 
one anymore, disappeared. The Shorters checked the Pontiac dog pound again 
and again, but Thunder didn't show up. Eventually, they gave up looking, con- 
vinced be had been stolen. 

"Thunder was found last week after he had already gone through one opera- 
tion in the eiperiraental laboratory of the Veterans Hospital in Ann Arbor. The 
lady who discovered him was Mrs. Dorothy Dyce, Detroit representative of the 
national Animal Welfare Instit\ite, who happened to stop at one pen In the 
hospital as she eheeked on the condition of the guinea pig animals. 

"Thunder was still wearing his flog tags. A phone call, a happy, 'Oh, yea!' and 
Thunder ^^as on his way home. He had i-een sold to the hospital for $6 on May 12. 
Where he had l>een before that, no one was prepared to say. The hospital called 
the dog dealer who sold him 'very reputable.' 

"By the time Mrs. Dyce happened by, Thunder had already undei^one an 
operation to prepare him for an eventual and cKperimental lung transplant. The 
Shorters rememlier well the night Thunder disappeared. 'The kids cried like 
mad wben tliat dog turned up missing,' Mrs. Shorter says. 'My husband always 
said : "Honey, I don't feel like Thunder is dead. I think someone has taken him, 
and when he gets loose, he'li come home." 

"The day Mrs. Dyce found the dog the Shorters put some beef hash on to 
warm and hurried to the hospital to make sure it was Thunder. 'I walked down 
the ball," Mrs. Shorter said, 'and a dog started barking. I couldn't help but cry. 
They brought Thunder in and he just ran and jumped up on Jim. He just whined 
like a baby. It was just a miracle.' " I would submit for the record two news- 
paper clippings about Thunder. 

Nor is the Ann Arbor VA hospital unique in violating the Act. 

Here are some quotes from a report April 21, 1971, on the VA Hospital in 
Dearborn: "A huge part collie-German shepherd, the poor thing could hardly 
be recognized as a dog. His face was so swollen, each leg had been shaved and 
the skin was red and sore looking, a dirty bandage was around his neck and a 
tube, inserted info his throat, was coming out nt the bsck of hi« neck . . ." This 
was the dog the complainant had heard : "Entering the building be heard a 
dog crying — -the dog he saw was strapped to a table . . . He said that there were 
tubes connected to the dog and that the two men in white coata were taking 
blood from the dog . . . He said the dog was strapped on hie back and crying 
the whole time he was in the building . . . they draw blood from the dog every 
day for alwnt 10 days. He said the dog is on the table from about 9:30 a.m. 
until about 3 :30 p.m." 

By August 13, 1971, Mrs. Dyce's efforts had brought about a Change, and her 
report shows that a doctor "showed me the statement on the bulletin board 
which says 'all dogs must be anesthetized while on the table for the blood with- 
drawal and plasma-making process.' Also the dogs are only on the table for 
three hours instead of the original 7 to 8 hours. So an anesthetized dog is on 
the table for three hours whereas the poor animals had l>een on the table for 7 
or S hours without anesthesia." 

These examples clearly demonstrate that outside inspection can rectify bad 
conditions, but it is out of the question for private groups to take care of such 
Inspection in a systematic way. 

If regular governmental inspections were carried out, the standards could be 
maintained as required by law. We urge this distinguished Committee to take 
appropriate action to ensure that the will of Congress is done. Regulaf reports 
should be submitted to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate 
on animals used by government agencies, just as the Department of Agriculture 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



reports concerning universities, research Institutes, and commercial enterprises 
using animals for researcb and testing. To do less is to accept cbronlc violation 
of the law. 

Tbe reports should be based on two factors: 1) regular inspection, and 2) 
certification by the responsible individuals on appropriate use of anesthetic, 
analge^c and tranqulllzlng drugs to prevent pain and distress. 

Thank you for the opportunity to Inform the Committee of the needs of the 
animals for the protection the Senate intended when it passed this landmark 
legislation. Tbe law has done a tremendous amount of good, eliminating many 
abuses that animals formerly were forced to softer. If loopholes are closed, the 
benefits of this Act will estend to those still suffering for want of its enforcement 
We appeal to you. Mr. Chairman, to end this needless NUfferiiig. 

Senator Weicker. Priscilla, do you have something you would like 
to set forth? 

STATEMENT OF PRISCILLA Q. BENKIS, ASSISTABT TO THE PRESI- 
DENT, AMERICAN BOO OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Mrs, Benkin. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving the American 
Dog Owners Association the opportunity to testify before this dis- 
tinguished committee. My name is Priscilla G. Benkin, 3506 Woodbine 
Street, Chevy Chase, 5Id., and I am authorized by the Board of Di- 
rectors of the Association to make this statement. 

As assistant to the president of the American Dog Owners Associa- 
tion, Inc., I have represented ADOA before the CAB in Docket 26310 
and testified on behalf of the association before various congressionail 
committees. 

The association represents approximately 1,000 dog clubs and some 
6,000 individual members. For the past several years we have been 
involved in the investigation and analysis of the problems involved in 
the transportation of animals. In connection with my work for ADOA 
and because of my own concerns as a shipper of valuable show dogs — 
and I might add that I shipped my last dog out exactly 48 hours ago — 
I have visited air freight facilities at numerous airports and have also 
investigated various conveyances for transporting dogs. For 7 or 8 
months last year, I spent 1 or 2 night a week as a volunteer at the 
animalport maintained at the REA terminal at National Airport 
under the aegis of the Washington Humane Society. I have also co- 
ordinated the ADOA transportation program on the national level, 
and many ADOA members throughout the Unit«d States have con- 
tacted me about their shipping problems — to such an extent that it 
required that we add another telephone in our house. 

We are here today to testify on oehalf of legislation to extend the 
coverage of the Animal Welfare Act to all common cairriei-s. Our con- 
cerns are twofold. In the first place, because of the progress that has 
been made at CAB and with individual airlines, some large-scale 
shippers are seeking alternate modes of transportation. The Puppy 
Palace chain of pet stores is now using second-hand Greyhound buses 
to deliver puppies from the midwestem commercial breeders to its 
eastern stores. I personally was told by the manager of a local Puppy 
Palace store that the second, or alternate, driver on these buses is 
detailed to care for the puppies when he was not driving. The Federal 
safety regulations say tnat Uie driver should be resting at that time. 
Obviously he cannot rest and care for puppies at the same time. 



Digitized byGoOglC 



We also fear that the multiplicity of regulation in the various agen- 
cies will result in no regulation at all. The IOC regulates the routes 
but not the conditions inside the vehicles. One enterprising puppy 
broker is transporting hundreds of puppies in a tractor-trailer truck 
from southern Kansas to Detroit, then east to New York, then south 
down the Atlantic coast. According to reports reaching ADOA, some 
40 puppies died on the initial trip. This broker is driving his own 
vehicle, carrying his own puppies, and we have not found regulations 
governing conditions inside his truck. This same situation exists on a 
smaller scale with hunting dogs, who are often carried on long journeys 
under very poor conditions in their owner's own truck, and 1 would 
add here that most of ADOA members are very experienced in trans- 
porting dogs on the road because most of us drive to dog shows. 

In what seems to be the most confused and confusing situation of 
all, the CAB ordered the air carriers to provide pickup and delivery 
for animals, yet the CAB has no control over the vehicles involved. 
In a city such as Washington, the temperature inside these local de- 
livery trucks may reach as high as 180 degrees on a hot, humid day, 
according to a freight handler for a major carrier here, and the 
freight, including animal crates, is stacked as high as it can be without 
any means of restraint. 

Small wonder then, that we ask for a uniform system of regulation 
by one agency for all means by which animals are carried. The USDA 
currently regulates ceri^ain shipments until they are delivered to the 
carrier and after they are received by the consignee. How logical then 
to extend this coverage to the period when the animal is in transit, 
not only by air, but by any means. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Weicker. Jlrs. Joan Blue, president of the American Horse 
Protection Association. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN BITJE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN HOfiSE 
PEOTECTION ASSOCIATION 

Mrs. BLtm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr, Chairman and members of this distinguished subcommittee, 
my name is Joan R. Blue. I am the president of the American Horse 
Protection Association, which is the only national nonprofit humane 
organization dedicated to the welfare of horses, both wild and do- 
mestic. Tlie AHPA has no paid staff i all working members are 
volunteers. 

Members of our association were instrumental in promoting the 
passage of two bills of great significance to the welfare of horses. The 
first, the Horse Protection Act of 1970, is designed to prohibit the 
brutal soring of the Tennessee walking horse, and outlaw crueltv to all 
domestic show horses. Members of the AHPA also spearheaded the 
drive for passage of a second important piece of legislation— the Wild 
Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 — which directs the 
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to preserve and protect 
a part of our American heritage. 

We greatly appreciate the committee's invitation to give our views 
concerning S. 1941. to increase the protection of animals in transit 
and to assure their humane treatment. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



Mr, Chairman, you and other members of the subcommittee may 
wonder why the AHPA is here when one realizes that so few horses 
are transported by air, a system of transportation used only by the 
wealthy racing industry and these horses are given the best of care. 
But our situation is so desperate with horses in transportation that 
we come to this committee for some kind of help and guidance. 

Senator Weicker. Well, let me state first off that your entire state- 
ment will be put in the record, but I would also just indicate two 
things. I would doubt that we will be able to cover horses in this legis- 
lation or that which has passed the House since the legislation princi- 
pally attends itself to laboratory animals and pets. But the matters that 
you're going to discuss here will be looked at by the Commerce Com- 
mittee, so I don't want you to feel in any way that you have wasted 
your time. I am here to listen. We are Iiere to take your statement and 
get it as part of the record. I know the Commerce Committee 
itself is going to be looking into the very specific problem which 
you're raising in your testimony. 

JIrs, Blue. Well, that gives us great hope. Senator. 

Tile AHPA congratulates Senator Weicker and the members of 
this subcommittee for their work on legislation in the area of humane 
care and treatment of animals in commerce. It is a shocking fa«t that 
there are no Federal humane laws in this country to regulate the 
transportation of horses by truck, and over 90 percent of our Nation's 
horses, most on their way to siaiighter, must travel by truck, usually 
under the most barbaric conditions. These animals are in desperate 
and immediate need of humane legislation which would provide the 
Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to prescribe standards 
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of horses 
in interstate commerce. 

The cruel traflSc in horsemeat for pet food and human consumption, 
and the brutality to horses, many already diseased and dyinff. on their 
way to slaiighter, has outraged great numbers of the public State 
laws throughout the country are usually miserably inadequate to 
regulate trucking of animals going to market, or to provide for their 
humane handling while held in transit or in sale bams. Horses trans- 
ported in (juar.tity are subject to severe suffering imposed by over- 
crowding, poor ventilation, lack of food and water, trampling, and 
exposure to the extremes of heat and cold. 

"Quick-buck" trucking firms drive from one horse auction to an- 
other gathering their loads, and holding the animals without rest, 
food, or water until their rigs are crammed and overloaded. Several 
traffic illustrations of this type of profiteering have been reported by 
AHPA members in upper Xew York State, near the Canadian border. 

A well-known "killer-buyer" from f >iiol»cc. Canada, was arrested by 
the local SPC.S. and State' police in Champlain. X.Y.. for inhumane 
treatment of 400 to .500 hor=es being readied for shipment to Canada, 
where they were to be slaughtered for human consumption and their 
carcasses shipped to Europe, These animals were founa to l>e cfmfined 
without food or wafer; many were Itoth diseased and injured. The 
'•killer-buyer" was later released on SI 00 bail. 

Eleven other horses were killed when a fnick carryinir a total of 
2.3 overturned on the Adirondack Xorthwav near Wilton, S.Y., after 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



70 

the driver lost control of his tractor-trailer. State iK^ce said that the 
23 horses were jammed into the back of the trudc where thej had stood 
for several days since leaving North Carolina. 

New York State police, while conducting a routine road check on 
the same interstate highway, found two trucks overloaded with 77 
horses, some injured and diseased, packed so tightly together that 
"some of them would fall, and, unable to retain their footing, were 
cruelly trampled to death." 

Bamett Fowler, of the Albany, X.Y., Times-Union, described a 
typical incident: 

The story waa simple ; the carnage tokening. . . . The floor ot a tractor-trailer 
loaded with horses destined (for slaughter in Canada) gave way and legs of 
horeee were scraping the highway pavement. Broken legs were nnmerons and 
one horse was trampled to death in the panic. 

State police were forced to shoot others too badly injured to survive 
the journey. New York State police estimate that as many as 10,000 
such horses are transported across the New York-Canadian border 
every month. 

Senator Weicker, I wonder, because I do want to get to the ques- 
tioning around the table, could I ask you to synopsize your statement 
and we will certainly accept the entire statement for the record. I am 
very interested in what you're trying to say but I want everybody to 
have a fair chance. 

Mrs. Blue. I think this would be the best thing to do — we notice 
that in the Federal Register that USDA has already proposed an 
inspection and handling of livestock for export and this is mainly 
what we are hoping for in lieu of actual Federal legislation, but we 
hope that it is possible that USDA could write Federal regulations 
which would somewhat lessen the agonies these poor creatures are 
forced to endure and then we would just hope that there will be an- 
other opportunity to present more. 

Senator Weicker. There will be. As I say, we are interested in the 
matters that you are going to bring before us and go ahead and put 
it in the appropriate legiSation. If you would submit the statement 
for the record I'd appreciate it. 

[The statement follows:] 

Statement op Joan 1 

Mr. Chairman, and members of this distingui^ed Suboommiittee, my name is 
Joan R. Blue. I am the president of the American Horse Protection Association, 
■which Is tlie only national nonpnoflt humane organization dedicated to the welfare 
<rf horses, both wild and domestic. The American Horse Protection Association 
has no paid staff ; all worliing memt>era are rirfunteers. 

Memlters of our Association were Inatruimental In promoting the passage ot 
two bills of great significance to the welfare of houses. The first, the Horse Pro- 
t«oflon Act of 1970, is designed to prohibit tlie brutal soi-ing of the Tennessee 
Walking Horse, and outlaw cruelty to all domestic show horses. Members of the 
American Hor.'w Protection Association also spearheaded ttie drive for poa.sage 
of a second important piece of legislation — the Wild Free Roaming Horses and 
Burros Act of 1971 — wMoh directs the Departments of the Interior and Agri- 
culture t» preserve and protect a part, of our American heritage. 

We greatly appreciate the Comimlttee'a invitation to give our views concerning 
S. IMl, to increase the protection of animals in transit and to assure their 
humane treatment. 

The American Horae Protection Association congratulates Senator Weiclier 
and the members of this Sul>committee for tiieir worb <m legislation In the area 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



71 

of bumane care and treatment ft animals in commerce. It ia a ^■ocbing fact that 
tiiere are no Federal humane laws in this countr? to regulate the transiH>rtatlon 
of horses by tmick, aiMi over 90% of nmr Nation's horses, most on their way lo 
slaughter, innst travel by tmck, uanally under the most barbairic eondltions. 
l^ese animals are in desperate and Immediate need of humane legisilaJdon which 
would provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the authorltj to preecrihe 
Sl«ndaMs for the himiane handling, care, treatnnent and tran^ortation of horses 
in Interstate com-meree. 

The cruel traffic In horsemeat for i>et Itiod and human consumption, and the 
brutality to horses, many already diseased and dying, <wi their way to slaughter, 
has outraged great numliers of the puliiic. iState laws throughout the country are 
usually miserably inadequate to regulate trucking of animalB going to market, 
or to provide for their humane handling iwhile held in transit or in sale hams or 
to auctions. Horses transported in quantity are subject to severe suffering 
imposed by overcrowding, poor ventilation, lack of food and water, trani-pling, 
and expoanre to the extremes of heat and cold. 

"Quick-buck" trucking firms drive from one horse auction to another gathering 
their loads, and holding the animals without rest, food or water until their rlB« 
are crammed and overloaded. Several tragic iliustrationa of this type of profiteer- 
ing have been reported by AHPA members in upper New York State, near the 
Canadian border. 

A well-known "killer-buyer" from Quel>ec, Canada, was arrested by the local 
SPCA and State Police in Chajiiplain, N'ew York, for inhumane treatment of 
400 to 500 horses being readied for sliipment to Canada, where they were to be 
slaughtered for human consumption and their caircasses shipped to Europe. 
These animals were found to be confined without food or water ; many were both 
diseased and injiired. The "kilier-ibuyer" was later released <m $100 bail. 

Eleven other horses were killed when a truck carrying a total of 23 overturned 
on the Adirondack Northway near Wilton, New York, after the driver lost con- 
trol of tiis tractor-trailer. State Police said that the 23 horses were Jammed into 
Uie back of the truck where they had stood for several days since leaving North 
Carolina. 

New York State I'oliee, while conducting a routine road check on the same 
interstate highway, fouml two trucks overloade<l with 77 horses, some injured 
and diseased, iwcked so tightly together that "JTOme of them would fall, and, 
unable to retain their footing, were cnielly trampled to death." 

Bamet Fowler, of the Albany, New York Times-Union, described a typical 
incident : "The story was simple ; the carnage sickening * * *. The Qiwr of a 
tractor-trailer loaded with horses destined (for slaughter In Canada) gave way 
and legs of horses were scraping the highway pavement. Broken legs wTre 
numerous and one horse wus trampled to death in the panic." State Police were 
forced to shoot others too badly injured to survive the journey. New York State 
Police estimate that as many as 10,000 such horse« are transported across the 
New York-Canadian border every month. 

Last winter the St. Lawrence (N.Y.) Plainilealer reported the accident of a 
double decker livestock truck carrying 34 saddle liorses and ponies from the 
midwest. They were bound for a slaughter house in Canada. The truck skidded 
off the road In 15-degree-below-Kero weather. The horses, many "torn apart and 
crushed Internally," suffered for eight hours l«fore help finally arrived. Many 
of the survivors had no eyes. They had been kicked out. All but twelve either 
were frozen to death, mortally injured, or were shot. The newspaper reportf^t that 
the survivors "have no spirit." 

Although some states specifically prohibit the conveyance of any animal in a 
cmel and Inhumane manner, these laws are difficult to enforce because of their 
vagueness, the ineptness of local officials, ridiculously low fines, and the weaknesfi 
of humane organizations in rural areas where abuse is most prevalent. Thus, 
Federal laws and regulations are desperately needed to reduce the torture of 
these helpless creatures. Because the problem is national in scope and via inter- 
state commerce over highways liuUt by Federal funds, it must lie dealt with 
by the Congress. 

The American Horse Protection Association hopes that n strong precise bill 
will be enacted. We respectfully submit that such a bill should contain at a 
minimum the following provisions: 

(1) To outlaw overcrowding which can cause suffocation, injury and death; 

(2) To limit a standard 10-foot by 40-foot van to no more than 20 horses; 



Digitized byGoOglC 



72 

(3) To set out standards of padding and bedding appropriate for the season 
and the vebicle ; 

(4) To adopt standards maldDg it necessarr tbat mixed loads (borses and 
cattle) sbould be separated by partitions to prevent braising, suHenug, goring, 
crippliDg or death ; 

(5) To provide tliat horse vans tie partitioned, allowing 2 feet across per horse 
to protect any fallen animal from trampling; 

(6) To make It mandatory for livestock to be watered and rested at least every 
8 hours. Vans can easily be opened from the outside to allow for ventilation and 

It has been proven that horses and other livestoclc are unable to relax while 
they are in motion inside a vehicle because they must constantly keep themselves 
braced. Consequently, after a few hours, the animals become exhausted. There- 
fore, the aboTe standards, especially those pertaining to resting and watering, 
are absolutely imperative. 

We believe tlMt the cost of enforcing this type of Federal iei^^lation could be 
minimized by using those State Police who already man the weighing stations 
where interstate trucks must stop for Inspection. 

On a trip by car from North Platte, Nebraska, to Idaho Falls, Idaho, a journey 
of over seventeen hundred miles, and across three state borders, I had occasion 
to observe Inspections of horse vans at various State weighing stations. 

One group of wild horses was transported on that long, long road from Nebraaha 
to Idaho; these were the 18 pathetic survivors of one of the bloodiest massacres 
erer recorded. ITiey had narrowly escaped beinft ground up into pet food, and 
were being returned to their home state of Idaho. The van, and tbe manifest 
presented by the driver, were carefully inspected by the State Police at every 
port of entry. But no one counted or even looked at the animals inside the van ; 
it was obvious that the welfai^ was of no interest except to the representatives 
of the humane organizations following this particular rig. But these horses were 
special indeed because they are the subject of a rather famous Federal court 
case. In contrast, the majority of the Nation's horses In interstate transporta- 
tion, those considered less historic, are manhandled like ordinary freight, left 
to suffer dehydration, in.iuffldent food, neglect. Injury and slow and agonizing 
death, all of which seems fantantlc in a Nation which nrldes itself on its superior 
civilization, compassion, religious ethic and fair play. This ugly situation must be 
stopped, and stopped quickly. 

The American Horse Protection Association, the most dedicated and concerned 
horse humane organization in America, strongly urges that the provisions of 
S. 1941 be extended to insure humane treatment of all horses by common carrier 
In interstate commerce. We need your help. The horses need this legislation and 
deserve to be included in this legislation. 

Thank you. 

Spn-ator Weickf.r. Let me ask all of yon, and I miglit add. Mrs. Blue, 
yon're in on this one just as mncli as thosp wlio are conwrnrd with dops 
and smaller animals — you have heard the t'SDA testify that these 
matters can best lie handled by voluntary programs. 

Now IVl like to get a response from all four of you and I'll start 
ri^ht with you. Mrs, Blue, firirt. 

Mrs. Bltti, "Wp certainly know from our experience with the Ten- 
nessee Walking Korse legislation that voluntary compliance is abso- 
lutely an impossibility. It has to be done by Federal regulations and 
le^slation. 

Senator Weicktir. AndPriscilla? 

Mrs. Benkin. I think that I agree. There's no way that voliintai-v 
oomnliancf is goinf; to work. The commercial shippers ai-e too bound 
by financial considerations to raise their standards to what we would 
consider to be acceptable levels. As Fay pointed out, there's also the 
problem that a great many of the private shippers are simply not 
aware of the conditions so they cannot comply voluntarily because 
they don't really understand and they are not informed by airlines 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



73 

■when they haul, but I just dont see any way at all that voluntary 
compliance will work- 
Mrs, Brisk. Mr. Chairman, I think we have given the airlines 
enough time to voluntarily make some improvements. We started 
hearings back in 1973 in the House Government Operations Subcom- 
mittee and since then we have had two other congressional hearings. 
We have had, and I'm a party to, the CAB hearings. We have this 
hearing today. The airlines have had ample opportunity to comply. 
There's notliing wrong with having a group of experts getting together 
once in awhile to rehash the problem — I mean, if they want to do that, 
that's fine, but experience l^s shown, particularly here at National 
Airport, that after they met that way for 10 years we still ran into the 
type of honible conditions we found at National Airport. We need 
legislation. 

Mrs. Stevens. No question that legislation is necessary. One exam- 
ple of why this is so is that when the FAA did at least propose some 
minimal requirements the agency was lobbied so hard that it had to 
retract its moderate proposal. It was simply the tie-down rule to keep 
animal crates from slipping around and being crushed by heavier lug- 
gage. They are not being tied down now because a number of animal 
dealers testified that they wouldn't be able to sell as many animals, and 
they would have to raise the prices. There was all kinds of pressure 
exerted showing that you can't leave those tilings to administrative 
action. There must be legislation making it mandatory. 

Senator WEici:En. I think I understand some of the problems that 
all of you have been confronted with. Speaking personally, we inti-o- 
duced legislation, as I say, in 1970 and I thought it was just a very 
small piece of legislation without a great deal of uproar at all. This 
was when I was a freshman in the Senate and all of a sudden I found 
I couldn't get a heaiin^ in the Commerce Committee and it's been 
almost 6 years now to bnng it to tJiis point. Obviously there have lieen 
powerful forces working behind the scenes and I can imagine what 
your frustration is if indeed I. as a U.S. Senator, am fnistrated in trj'- 
ing to achieve some sort of reform in this area. 

Those of you who have taken so much time out of your lives to pur- 
sue a worthwhile cause, I can assure you of one thing, in case there are 
any of those powerful foi-ces in the room, this is notice to them also, 
tins legislation is going to get passed and it's going to get passed tiiis 
year. There's no question about it and people had better start eitlier to 
cut back their profit margins or figure out wlhat they're going to charge 
to achieve proper care. I think it's time in that sense that the wliole 
country came to the knowledge that it's wonderful to ha\'e a pet, but 
there's an expense involved to it. If that pet is going to be treated 
correctly, that moans that you pay for it and you just don't go aJioad 
and expect somebody else to pick up the tab, either through their 
money or through their efforts, as is evidenced in this panel before me. 
Is thei-c anything else that any of you have to say? I'm going to 
move to the next panel. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to 
come here. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



74 

Mrs. Stevens. You did suggest that we might ask a question and I 
wondered if the USDA could tell us the amount of funding requested 
by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for enforcement 
of the Animal Welfare Act for the coming fiscal year. I think a lot of 
these things need to be nailed down financially. 

Senator Weicker, The question has been asked, Dr. Chaloux, as to 
the amount of funding for enforcement requested by the Department 
for this fiscal year. Can you give that figure ? 

Dr. Chaloux. For fiscal year 1976, the amount available is approxi- 
mately $2.4 million. 

Senator Weicker. For enforcement. Let me ask you this, Dr. Cha- 
loux : If the type of duties evolved upon the USDA that are alluded 
to in the bill or by the dialog which you're hearing now, what would 
your estimate be of the additional costs of enforcement? 

Dr. Chaloux, We have estimated the additional cost with respect to 
the various bills, concerning the animal transportation and retail pet 
store provisions of S. 1941, the additional costs would be for the first 
year, $2.3 million ; and for the second year, $2.1 million. For S. 2070 
and S. 2430, we estimate that the additional costs for the first year 
would be $665,00n ; and for the second and succeeding years, $385,000. 
This is for the animal transport provisions only. We do not have any 
concept of what the dog fight control would cost us. 

Senator Weicker. I understand. Thank you very much. 

Does that answer your question ? 

Mrs. Stevens. Yes. Thank you very muoh. 

Mrs. Brisk. I liave one thing, Mr. Chairman. I have a partial State- 
by-State breakdown of the type of animal shipments that have been 
coming this way for the past 3 years. I'd like to submit that. 

Senator Weicker. We'd very much like to have it. 

Mrs. Brisk. It includes a long list of animal shipments going into 
Connecticut. 

Senator Weicker. I appreciate it very much. Ladies, thank you very 
much for taking your time and appearing. Thank you. 

{The following information was subsequently received for the 
record :] 

The following ia a very small sampling of the type of animal shipments found 
by Washington Humane Society volunteers at Washington Xatlonal Airport, 
1972-1975. 

En route to: 

OONNEcmCtlT 

Beagle shipped from Maryland to Bridgeport, Conn., had sores all over emaci- 
ated body. Humane society volunteers took dog to Alexandria veterinarian and 
paid $94 vet hill when both shipper and consignee abandoned it. Sores diagnosed 
as mange. 2/18/75. WB No. 9143S5. 

From Wisconsin to Stamford, Conn : Male dingo dog nailed Into narrow crate 
with two small air holes. No way to water. 5/29/74. WB 632244. 

From Iowa to Bridgeport, Conn : 12 baby racoons in small, wooden airless 
crate slightly larger than a shoe box. 5/29/74. 

Shipped from La Plata, Mo., to Wallingford, Conn, pet shop : Chihuahua 
puppy found dead. Autopsy report showed puppy strangled by its own worms. 
This pup had been at the terminal the day before, but volunteers were not told 
of puppy's illness. 6/20/74. WB 893323. 

From New York to University of Connecticut, Storrs : research beafcles in wire 
urates with no solid bottoms. Remained overnight at airport. 11/20/74. WB 
412479. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



75 

Baby monkey sblpped without bealth certificate from Miami. Fla., to pet aliop 
in Norwalk, Conn. Cardboard crate. No way to water 9/23/74. WB 693901. 

10 cats in poultry crate, tails and xmws hanging out. shipped from Michigan 
to Fairfield University, Conn. (Pix available) 3/12/73. WB B64030. 

10 crates of white rabbits slilpped from Long Island. N.Y., to UniTeraity of 
Connecticut, Farmlngton, in cardboard cartons marked "Fresh Chicken Fryers". 
June, 1974. WB 34&192. 

Two baby goats shipped from Missouri to New Haven pet shop in shallow 
plastic crate. Could not move. Needed to be fed via bottle. Consignee stated that 
floats would have died if volunteers had not moved them into large crat^ and 
fed them. 

From Wassau, Wisconsin ; Mail order puppy flown via Lake Central to Mil- 
waukee, from Milwaukee via United 306 to Cleveland, O., from Cleveland via 
United 852 to Hartford, Conn., from Hartford to Washington National Airport, 
where it was shipped back to Hartford (its destination). 1/23/73. WB 754346. 



OouQor Case — Fix of crate availahle 

A six-year-old. 110-lb. Northern Cougar {Felis concolor) from a New York 
(tame farm to Washington National Airport, where she was scheduled for a 
fli^t transfer to a game farm in Florida. 

Traveling on a New York State endangered spedes permit, the cougar arrived 
at the airport at 11 a.m., May 22. the hottest May 22 on record In the D,C. area 
since 1941. Temporatures soared into the 90's. 

Cougar was transferred to another airline for a 1.59 ip.m. flight to Tampa, 
bnt something went wrong. At 5 p.m. the airline returned her to the original 
airline's freight terminal, where she wan stranded for the night. By this time, 
the cougar had been in transit more than 12 hours, and her "waiting room" was 
a hot hangar, where she had sat all afternoon in an airless, coffln-like crate with 
two narrow silts, one at each end, presumably for ventilation. 

A Washington Humane Society volunteer called the National Zoo, which 
sent someone to pick her up. She remained in the Zoo hospital for several days. 
She didn't survive. 

She died of bronchial pneumonia on May 29, the day after slie was re-crated 
by the Zoo and shipped to Tampa. Her autopsy report says that on that day 
■at 11 ajn.. Ginger showed "signs of suffocation, deep breathing — Walking, 
extremely hot. Died about 2.15 p.m. Found cyanotic just prior to death." 



Rooster en route from Huntsville, Ala., to Vidalia, Ga., found stuffed into 
lettuce crate at Washington National Airport 5/23/73. WB 641426. 

Great Dane puppy shipped from Minnesota to Macon, Ga., with Infected ears. 
1074. WB 491S59. 



A mail order puppy shipped from South Dakota to Moutlicard, Ky. in flimsy 
lettuce-type crate that was crushed and broken. Summer, 1972. 

Hound shipped from Tenn. to Paris, Ky. in crate that was nailed shut and 
had no water container or bedding. 9/3/T4. WB 6079^ 

LOUISIANA 

Hound shipped from Kentucky to Houma in wire crate so small, dog couldn't 
move. No water container or bedding. 12/10/74. WB 700674. 

Beagle dam and two nursing pups Mhipi>ed from New York to New Orleans 
taken to animal slielter in Virginia. Dam was J)leeding profusely. 9/12/74. WB 
8^953. 

Letter from a Houma, La. pet owner thanked volunteers for taking care of 
"Sammy The Beagle" and "Scoohy The Cat" at National Airport. Vet owner 
wrote ; "May this letter serve to warn other pet owners that there is no rftuation 
meriting the sending of pets or any other animal commerciatly." Da-ted 2/23/75. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



WAETL4SD 

From Donnelldo, O., to Frederick, Mrt. pet shop. Sick puppy died en route to 
Aleiandrift Animal SheMer. 10/17/74. 

Yorkshire pup shipped from BrooVline, Mo. to IverHon Mall, Md. pet shop. 
found dead. April, 1974. WB 733287. 

From Knnsas : Puppy bound for a Waldorf, Md. pet shop found dead. 9/16/74. 
WB 14S463. 

From Florida to NIH, RockviUe, Md. t three dead capuchin monkeys In bloody 
crate containing others. Part of a shipment of 40 monkeys in crowded crates with 
no water containers. 7/17/74. WB 671677. 

To a RookTille research facility from Studio City, Oal. : woolly monkey In poor 
erate, no way to feed or water, remained In warehouse overnight. S/20/74. WB 
233280. 

Two research oats shipped from New York in lettnce-itype crates abandoned at 
National Airport by Laurel, Md. consignee. Turned orer to an Alexandria veter- 
inarian who diagnosed their illness as "acute leukemia." 3/4/75. WB 940427. 

42 cartons of rats (nearly 1,000) shipped from New York to NIH. Half were 
dead and rotting from the heat Live rata ate dead ones. Entire shipment taken to 
Alexandria Animal SheWer where thc^e still alive were enthanized. (Pix avail- 
able) 6/27/73 

Sick puppy shipped from la., to Annapolis, Md. pet shop died at Alexandria 
Animal Shelter 1/9/74. WB 136118. 

Dead huskj en route from Oklahoma to Hillcrest Heights, Md. 3/1/73. WB 
635355 

Poiirter arrived ft^m Missouri at Washington National Airport with bloody 
tall that was hanging out of slated wooden crate. Freight supervisor refused to 
permit volunteers to keep dog at "animalport" overnight so they could take It to 
a veterinarian in the morning. Reached by i*one a week later, consignee at 
Salisbury, Md. told humane society volunteers that the dog had "bled to death." 
12/11/74. WB No. 425625. 

Hound from Missouri arrived on conveyor belt with entire head and neck 
sticking out of hole in makeshift crate. This dog was a replacement &>r the hound 
that bled to death. 1/21/76. WB 425662. 

Ten-year-old Walker hound shiMiert to Hageratown. Md. in narrow chicken wire 
crate, nailed shut with no water container. Hound had obvious skin disease, was 
riddled with large sores. Taken to Alexandria veterinarian for treatment S/7/73. 
WB 882453. 

Hound puppy shipped from Texas to l^ke Friendship, Md. in crate stuffed with 
entrails of another animal. 10/17/74. WB S131119. 

From Pori^ Washington, N.Y, to a Kockvllle, Md. research laboratory, monkeys 
in wooden crates with metal strips that came apart en route. No watering pro- 
visions. 10/2/74. WB 443996. 

From Blackstone, Mass., to Salisbury, Md. Zoological Gardens: three wallabies 
nailed into ■wooden crate with only a few air holes. No way to water. 6/29/74, 
WB 413433. 

MICHIGAN 

Emaciated beasle shipped from Tennessee to Battle Creek, Mich, was so in- 
fested with hookworms, it could only sit, head down, without moving in Its shabby, 
dirty crate. Chicago veterinarian who examined dog on stopover at O'Hara Air- 
port in Chicago, en route from National Airport to Michigan, said dog could no 
longer respond to voice or touch. January, 1973. WB 548750. 

NEW TOBK 

From Ohio to Isllp, N.Y. : Two Australian shell ducks stuffed into small lettuce- 
type crate. One duck nearly strangled by twine unraveled from burlap sack In 
crate. 9/23/74. WB 332751. 

Two kititens shipped from Kansas to a New York pet shop taken to Alexandria 
veterinarian who treated injured eye of one kitten and noted that kitens were 
"too young to travel." Also stated that plastic crates did not keep klittens warm 
enough in January weather. 1/6/75. WB 608590. 



Digitized by Google 



Two chihuahua puppies died en route from Alhia, la., to Beaufort, N,C. pet 
shop. 5/4/73. WB 905334 (pis availahle). 

Coonhound seot from Missouri to N. Carolina in an airless, coffin-like crate that 
was 15 inches wide, stufCed with straw and nailed Shut. No water container, 
1/3/73. WB 885277 (pis available). 

From Arkansas to « Fayettville, N.C. pet shop : 27 dead and four lice guinea 
pigs. 7/22/74. WB 760596. 

Snake shipped from Santa, Cal. to a Wilmington, N.C, zoo got out of cardboard 
boi in which it was sent 5/22/73. WB 654548. 

Pour crates of pupiries three days en route from Kansas found at airport bound 
for Wilson, N.C. pet shop. 0/9/74. WB 731292. 



Bitch In heat sent to Pennsylvania In crate with no bedding. Blood spilling from 
crate. 1/26A3. WB 875557. 

From Jack.ionTille, Fla. : puppies In cardboard crate covered with plastic. No 
ventilation. Transferred to new crate at Airport and shipped on to Reading, Pa. 
2/19/74. WB 927337. 

Hound shipped from Ohio to Hydman. Penna. in plywood crate with wire lid 
nailed shut. No bedding. So short and narrow, bound stood in bunched position. 
4/29/75. WB 555T04. 

Irish Better shipped from Illinois to Carlisle, Penna. chewed hole In crate, got 
head stuck outside. Managed to chew up carton of laboratory rats sitting in 
front of It. Jail. 1973. (pii available). 



Airline freight handler brought five crates of puppies to "animalport" becanse 
they could not get on a flight to Warwiick, R.I. until the following morning and 
airline had no facilities to care for them. Volunteers fed and watered puppies, 
changed their bedding and returned them to airline ... at no charge. 8/21/74. 

'Wooden crate too small for bound puppy shiMJed from North Carolina to 
Cranston, R.I. Only ventilation ; two narrow strips of chicken wire near top of 
crate. No bedding or water containers. October 1974, WB 421390 

Two beagles stuffed into a small crate for shipment from Virginia to Cranston, 
E.I. 11/20A4. WB 317530. 



Four-month-old emaciated coonhound shipped from lUincda to S, Carolina with 
infectious hepatitis. Byes filled with pus. Found in warehouse in flimsy crate too 
small to permit dog to stand up or turn around. No cross- ventilation. No container 
for water. No absorljent material. Dog crouched In crate filled with urine and 
feces. Taken by volunteers to .Alexandria veterinarian for emergency treatment 
and removal of ticks veterinarian said were "as big as balloons." Dob abandoned 
by both shipper and consignee who wouldn't pay vet bill. Turned over to humane 
society volunteers. Dog's Illness later diagnosed as "infectious hepatitis". Dog 
died. 5/30/73, WB 860375. 

Blue tick hound shipped from Illinois to Greenville, S.C. in wooden crate that 
was nailed shut and measured six inches shorter than the dog. 9/4/74. WB 235764. 
From Mt. Vernon, la. to Hartsviile, S.C. : six St. Bernard puppies in crates 
containing no bedding or water containers. 8/26/74. 

Puppies en route from Missouri to Orangeburg, S.C, in crates that fell apart 
at airport, 8/21/74, WB 34967. 



Toy poodle pupp.v .=hipped from North Dakota to Nashville, Tenn. found locked 
in dark, airless clowet in warehouse at airport. Puppy was in a plastic crate with 
crushed top. Needed water. Freight handlers said puppy was locked in closet 
so that "animalport" volunteers wouldn't see cnished crate. 4/30/75. WB 4ft0OS7. 

Dog shipped from Indiana to Knoxville In orange crate with no water con- 
tainer, and no solid bottom, 9/lfi/74. WB 305901, 

Hound shipped from Missouri to Cleveland, Tenn., in makeshift crate, two 
front paws hanging out, 8/19/74. WB 908728, 

Husky puppy shipped from Kansas to Knoxville, Tenn. pet shop. Listless, 
heavy mucous In eyes and nose. Had cough. 1974. WB 501941 . 

66-717—76—6 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



VIBOINIA 

Male beagle bleeding from rectnm en route to Winchester, Va. Taken to 
veterinarian. 5/13/75. 06JAXAE20735050. 

Eighteen-montli-old coonhound shipped from Tennessee to Virgiala in last 
stages of distemper. Euthanized at Manasaaa Animal Hospital. 1/6/72. WB 
446648. 

Walker hound shipped from Texas to Mt. Jackson, Va., In a rusty, wire crate 
lined with tar paper that had melted in 98 degree heat Dog was insured for 
$1,000. 8/29/73. WB 94147S. 

Hound shipped from Illinois to Cajw Charles, Va. in lettuce-type crate too 
narrow to permit dog to urinate or defecate. Dog broke out of crate for that 
purpose. 2/21/74. WB 235140. 

Boxer pup and Peke shipped from Missouri 1/7/74 to pet shop in Springfield, 
Va. At RBA terminal 1/9/74. WB 727675, 

White terrier puppy shiiq)ed from Waverley, Kansas to Richmond, Va., dead on 
arrival at RE3A terminal. 9/4/74. WB 757676. 

Dead elkhound puppy from La Plata, Mo., found in lettuce crate en route to 
Virginia Beach pet shop. (Autopsied). 6/17/75. WB 123758. 

Senator Weickek. We have next Joe Morgan, counsel, American 
Humane Association; Rutherford T, Phillips, executive director, 
American Humane Association; and Franz Dantzler, director, field 
services and investigations. Humane Society of the United States. 

All of your prepared statements will be accepted and made a part 
of the record in full. I'd appreciate it, just as a matter of time, if you 
could synopsize because I'm really interested in your opinions off the 
top of your head as to various situations and making sure that every- 
body has an opportunity to present their case. So with that, please go 
ahead and start. 

STATEMENT OF JOE V. UOBOAN, TR., COUNSEL, AMERICAN 
HUMANE ASSOCIATION 

Mr, Morgan, My name is Joe V. Morgan, Jr., and I'm a member of 
the bar of the District of Columbia and Maryland, I'm Washington 
counsel for the American Humane Association and since I have here 
with me Mr. Phillips, who is their executive director, I won't go into 
detail as to what the American Humane Association is. He will talk 
about that. He's come here from Denver. He happens also to have been, 
for the last 15 years, the chairman of the National Council for Animal 
Transportation which was initiated about 15 years ago by the Amer- 
ican Humane Association. 

I will try to keep my remarks very brief and let Mr. Phillips go into 
those things. 

Because we are a dharitable organization our legislative activity has 
to be very limited by law and we try to restrict it to situations where 
it would appear there's a reasonable expectation of obtaining useful 
legislation and we feel that these hearings are such an opportunity and 
therefore we are very happy to have the opportunity to be here. 

On October 29, last, the American Humane Association had its 99th 
annual convention in San Diego, Calif., and the association passed a 
resolution urging the passage of S. 2070 and S. 2430 or similar legis- 
lation which, of course, womd include the intent of S, 1941. We prefer 
S, 2070 and S. 2430 merely because it does have the animal fighting 
provisions in it. We are sure that the committee in considering these 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



79 

three pieces of legislation will take the best provisions of them all and 
put them together and come out with a very good act. 

We do have, and I will be very brief on this, a couple of specific 
comments on these three bills. 

On S. 1941, since the original jurisdictional basis of the prior act 
as amended which is "affecting commerce" is to be changed to "in 
commerce," will it be clear that an "intermediate handler, includes 
a delivery service. We want to feel confident that it will be clear 
that an intermediate handler who only transports animals within a 
State but then turns them over for continuation of the trip in inter- 
state commerce will be covered by the act. 

I think the other two acts do broaden the definition of commerce 
if it affects commerce and it includes transportation within the State. 
I'm not sure whether it's the intent of S- 1941 to do so, but I think 
it should be certain that these intermediate handlers are covered 
because they are very important and they are not subject to the juris- 
diction of regulatory agencies such as the CAB because they are not 
carriers under their definition and I suspect that's probably true with 
respect to other regulatory agencies such as the ICC. 

I'm sure the chairman or someone on the staff has already found 
the typographical error in line 9 on page 5, "retail" should be "retain," 
and I assume that's been corrected. 

One suggestion we'd like to make on page 7 of that bill, 1941, 
line 4, is that before the word "veterinarian, the word "accredited" 
be inserted. I notice there was a reference to that in the testimony 
from the gentleman from the Agriculture Department and I have 
attached to my statement a portion of a witness which we presented 
at the CAB hearings to explain why that might be helpful and I hope 
that will be accepted as part of my statement. 

Now this association as represented by me and the other witness, 
fully participated in the proceedings before the CAB which were 
referred to earlier in docket No. 26310, urging reasonable tariff changes 
for domestic air carriers. However, it will be some considerable time 
before the r^ults of these hearings which are still before the admin- 
istrative law judge are known, and I think it's clear from what's 
been said today that it's not absolutely certain that the results will 
do what we want. We have participated fully in that hearing and we 
are participating here. 

Frankly, we're not taking sides. We are anxioys for whichever comes 
first to come first and I think we have to shoot all the arrows and all 
the bows and try to see if we can't get these regulations. We hope that 
they will proceed both in this form and before this august body and 
before the CAB. 

We thought it might be helpful, however — we have already provided 
copies to the staff and I have more here — ^to offer in the evidence today 
our exhibits in that proceeding, in docket 26310, and also the brief 
which we just filed this week on Monday which indicates, among other 
things, that we feel it is possible to set forth in detail, reasonable regu- 
lations. Of course, this body is not passing on specific regulations. It's 
considering who should make the regulations, but I think it's impor- 
tant to know that it is possible to make these kinds of regulations and 
that they will not be unreasonable. 

I'd like to ask the chairman, may I include those in the record? 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



Senator Weicker. Yes, very definitely. 

Mr. Morgan. And I have already provided copies. I have more 
copies, I notice by inadvertence I left our Exhibit No. 201, which was 
a letter to our witness from the DOT, out of what I have already pro- 
vided and I wonder if I could submit that to you. 
Senator Weicker. Indeed you may. 
[The letter follows:] 

Departmebt of Tbahsportation, 
Federal Aviation Aduinistiutioii, 

Aebonautical Center, 
Oklahoma City, Okla., Atigmt 5, 1975. 
Robert L. Hummer, V.M.D., 
10606 Sunflower Lane, 
San Antonio, Tex. 

Dear Dr. Humheb; Pursuant to Br. Busby's reqnest, I nm summBiizing the 
work that has been performed at ■**- Civil AemmedicAl Institute during the last 
yeaj concerning Che stress enviroinment. of animal transportation. 

On August and September <rf 1974. I nmde trips to Washington, D.C., Chlcaffo, 
New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix. On these tripe 1 took, as excess 
baggage, a dog crate in.stjTimented .with a ir:>neyTwll 24.hour tMnperature- 
hiimldity recorder. The intent was to record the temperature and humidity of the 
Cla»t D tm^age compartment -where animals are kecit during fhipmuini. 

Being In August and September and 'because oi sidiedullng, we were unable to 
get the hottest days for our flight ninB. In addition, tbe manufacturer failed to 
tell us Hiat the recorder had about a 30-minute delay response, so we were 
unable to record tbe actual temperature at tbe .moment It occwrred. Because of 
this, we felt the data were not complete and did nwt revieal the true picture cf 
each flight 

During the past year, we were also able to study the effecte, on two grouj)s of 
10 male doga, of a hi}^ temperature and its oorresponding high and low relatire 
HumiOltJes (EH) whidi cooild conceivably exist during air tranaportaMon. The 
flrat group averaged 49.3 pounds, and the second averaged SS.SiMwinds In weight. 
All dogs were iudiyidually eifposed to heat/humidity strws. Ttie first group were 
exposed for 30 minutes to a temperature of 1-30° F and RH of 15%. Tlie second 
group were exposed for tbe aame ti«ie period and temperature, but the Rtt wan 
35%. All dogs were monitored for heiirit. rate and rectal temperature. Twenty-two 
different blood analyses were detennined for eaoh dog. 

Tlie results showed that stgnifieant differences (P<.01) did occur in rectal 
temperature, blood COi, blood pH, heart rate, heuic^lobin, hematocrit, and red 
blood cell eounit, during tbe SO-mimite exposure for Iwth ihotiik of dogs. How- 
ever, only TP<:tial tem|)erature, blood COj. and blood pH ^owed a significant 
increase (P<.01) when coimparing Oie 15%- to the 35%-RH group. Body weight, 
blood Os, and blood cholesterol showed a ^gnlfioant change at i'<.0o level for 
both groups during the 30-ininute exposure. 

On days 0, 1, 2. 4, and 8 following exposure, two dogs from each gronn were 
neerop^ed and tissues "rfeer studied for histological changes. The changes in 
the brain were the most profound and significant pathol<^cal alterations of the 
organs studied. The nerve cells of tbe eereliellum and cerebal cortex presented 
marked degenerative changes. Many specimens showed evidence of edema and 
niicrobemorrbages. Most changes found in the central nerrous system were con- 
sidered to be severe and irreversible. 

Microscopic examination of the heait tissue revealed that fragmentation of 
flie myocardium was prevalent : tbis was believed to be due to hyperthermia. 
In general there was loss of muscle fiber striations and early d^eneratlon of 
tbe nuclei. Mlcrohemorrhages were often seen in the tissue. The changes (*served 
In the heart muscle are questionable as io their irreversibility. 

The kidneys of some dogs presented chances of acrrte cortical necrosis. These 
were marked, acute, profound, and believed related to the experimental procedure. 

The lungs, in general, showed varying degrees of congestion and seotal thick- 
ening for the group of dogs exposed to tbe 1S% RH. while the lungs of the group 
exposed to the 35% RH presented more interalveolar hemorrhage, engorged blood 
vessels, and edema. The lungs of those doga necropsied at days 0, 1, and 2 revealed 
the most pathological involvement By days 4 and 8 the lung tlsBne was ehowlng 
evidence of reiwir. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



Because an animal does not die or show outward signs of illness when stressed 
Itj environmental eonditiuDs does not mean it is in the bes^t ot health. Just 
because an animal is able to tolerate such conditions as temperature, humidity, 
varying COi levels, noise, confienment, reduced air flow (atr changes), and total 
-darkness rather than light does not mean the animal is l)eing treated humanely 
or safely. We have attempted to show this in our short and aomewbat limited 
study. At present, no further studies are planned in this area. 
Sincerely, 

G. D. HAsaKMAF, D.T.SI., 
Chief, Veterinary Medicine Section, AAC-IU, 

Civil Aeromedicai Institute. 

3Ir, MoRO.\x. Base<l oti that, I would introduce ilr. Rutherford T. 
Phillips, our executive director. 
[The statement follows:] 



My name is Jo V. Morgan, Jr. I am a member of the District of Columbia and 
Marylaud Bars and my main olHce is at 815 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Wasbington, 
D.C. I am Washington counsel for The American Humane Association concerned 
with their legislative interests, among other things. Because of their charitable 
status, their legislative activity is verj* limited, and they try to restrict It to 
situations where it would appear that there is reasonable espectatioa of obtain- 
ing l^elation which would help protect animals or children. They feel that 
these hearings on S. 1641, S. 2070 and S. 2430 present such an opportunity. 

At their Oflth Annual Convention in San Diego, California on October 29th last, 
the Association passed a resolution urging the passage of S. 2070 and S. 2430, or 
Similar legislation, which would include S. 1941. Tbe Association prefers S. 2070 
and S, 2430 because of the additional provisions prohibiting animal figbtlng. 

A. The Association has the following specific comments on tbe three bills ; 

B. 1041 

<1) Inasmuch as the original Jurisdictional liasls of the Act of August 24, 1966, 
as amended, P.L. 89-544 and P.L. 91-579 wliich is "affecting commerce" Is to be 
changed to "In commerce", will it be dear that an "intermediate handler", see 
line 19 on page 3 through line 2 on page 4, includes a delivery service like BBIA 
wa.'s, or United Parcel is, wlilcb iiiolis up an animal or a numtier of animals within 
a State and delivers it to an interstate carrier's terminal for continuation in 
Interstate commerce. If this is not clear, we suggest it be made clear. 

(2) There is a typographical error in line 9 on page 5, "retail" Should be 

(3) We suggest the word "accredited" be inserted before the word "veterinar- 
ian" at the end of line 4 on page 7. Tlie reason tor this is set forth in the excerpt 
from testimony of Dr. Robert L. Hummer, DVM, tbe Association's Veterinary 
Medicine Consultant liefore Civil Aeronautics Board Administrative Judge Alex- 
ander N. Argerakis, in CAB Docket Ko. 26310. a copy of which is attached hereto 
as Exhibit A. 

B. The Association has, represented by this counsel, participated fully In the 
proceedings in the Civil Aeronantics Board, Docket Xo. 26310, urging reasonable 
tariff changes for the Domestic Air Carriers which would protect live animals 
during air transriortntlon and jrrouml handling in connection therewith. It will 
be some considerable time before result:-, of these hearings, which are still before 
the Administrative Judge are known. While it Is recognized that this Subcom- 
mittee Is not here concerned with siieelfic rule making, but rather who should 
make and enforce the rules and how. it was thought that copies of The American 
Humane Association's Exhibits and its brief to the Administrative Judge, includ- 
ing comprehensive pro|)osed rules for air carriage and ground handling of ani- 
mals, might be of assistance to the Subcommittee. I request these be made a part 
of the record of this hearing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jo V. MoBGiJT, Jr. 



Digitized byGoOglC 



A. The current interpretation o( the designation "accredited" means that he 
has been accredited to doT.B. testing, Bangs testing, things of this type, pertain- 
ing to large animals after he has received his state board eKamination from 
any given political division. 

Now, at a previous meeting in this room it was indicated by representatives 
of USDA that they were working on a similar certification (or the other animals, 
excluding the large animals, and it was with that advance Information in mind 
that I insisted that we put the word "accredited" in there, I>ecau9e as there 
are creatures and creatures and wives and wives there are veterinarians and 
veterinarians, and I feel that we should insist that we have an accredited 
veterinarian doing this testing and certifying. There are too many examples too 
where licensed veterinarians are signing a whole pad of shipping certiflcates and 
giving them out to their clients. 

Q. The accreditation though Is an accreditation by the Department of Agri- 
culture for large animal practitioners? 

A. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Let me say this in passing, I think one thing 
becomes rather clear as we sit here and discuss this matter as to who's 

foing to do the job. I think we would probably all agree that the 
'AA is the least likely candidate. Their primary consideration is 
safety for eveiTbody. Now you boil it down to CAB and the USDA, 
Granted the Department of Agriculture has really two primarj- 
responsibilities — animals and people— people are an important part. 
The CAB is really strictly people. That's their primary consideration. 
Secondary is animals, but it's clearly secondary. And the USDA has 
an 6:(^rtise in the area of animals that is shared by no one else, at least 
to that level of expertise. 

It would also almost be the same if we asked the USDA to get 
into the business of airplane construction. They don't know anything 
about that. 

So I think — and Dr. Chaloux will have a chance to respond to 
this — but if there weren't budgetary considerations, if it was just 
done on the basis of knowledge, I think it seems to me and at least 
the panelists up to this point, that this would be the agency to handle 
the type of regulation we are talking about here. 

Would you agree with that? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I certainly would, and we do urge very strongly 
that this type, of legislation be passed. 

Senator Weicker. Fine. 

Mr. Phillips. 

STATEMENT OF RUTHEEPOED T. PHILLIPS, EXECUTIVE DIMKTOE, 
AMESICAN HnUANE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. Phillips, Thank you, Senator. 

I will brief my remarks which I have filed. Jo Morgan has already 
touched on some of the thing? and we have piTsented testimony before 
before along this line and I just call attention to the fact that the 
American Humane Association, which is 99 years old, was set up as 
a federation of animal protection agencies and the child protection 
agencies, as I said, 99 years ago, and actually the beginning reason 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



83 

was to try to achieve something in livestock transportation which 
led to the 2836 law that was passed in 1906, although the oiiginai 
act was passed in 1878. 

The basic part of this, I think, has been pretty well touched upon. 
Mr. Morgan reported that at our convention in October the delegate 
unanimously urged the Congress that it enact into law a bill that 
intended to reduce suffering of animals during transportation on 
public and other carriers and prohibiting dog and other fights. Even 
though this is covered under State law, we have seen the problems of 
enforcement of this. 

I think that, among other things, that we are concerned with — 
and again I'm briefing down— is the transportation of livestock and 
particularly horses by truck which has not oeen covered by the exist- 
ing laws, and very interestingly, we have been approached and are 
working with the more or less independent or small ti'uckors who 
would like to see enforcement of the ICC regulations which would 
cover the transportation of livestock and prohibit some less than 
lemtimate people from overloading trucks and that sort of thing. 

Last week at the Animal Welfare Committee meeting of the Umted 
States Animal Health Association, they also endorsed legislation that's 
supported by the National Council on Animal Transportation for 
extension of the act to allow the USDA to regulate shipments of 
animals in interstate commerce by air as well as to either pass a 
28-hour law covering truck shipments or extending the present ICC 
regulations. 

The intent of these bills we ai'e certainly fully in agreement with. 
As Mr. Morgan pointed out, we have supported this type of legis- 
lation earlier. We have also worked at it fioni the standpoint of CAB 
and FAA regulations and our concern is how do we get it done? 
Mr. Morgan pointed out that in 1960 we called a meeting, which 
has later developed into the National Council on Animal Transporta- 
tion, to see if we couldn't get all the people involved to come up with 
reasonable, practical approaches to handling the problems. And tlie 
airlines, the laboratory animal people, American Association of 
Laboratory Animal Science, the railroads, the truckers — everybody 
has been involved. 

I think perhaps the possible concern that we had is the one tliat was 
pointed out earlier. Here 15 years later we are just beginning to get 
recommendations as bills or changes in regulations which that group 
approved of and recommended way back in 1960. So it is a difficult 
thing to work on a voluntary basis. There are certain things that 1 
think can be done within existing agencies if the regulations are 
changed. 

Now we have, through our headquarters, today passed on all of these 
complaints that come to our attention to the air caiTiers, KEA and the 
others. We work and receive complaints from the laboratory animal 
people and a lot of others. We work closely wibh USDA. We are aware 
of and concerned that part of their problem is lack of funding. Part of 
the problem, as you mentioned earlier, sir, is there's a bit of difference 
between bureaus who have jurisdiction over one particular area or 
another, but at least I think in the last year there has been a very 
strong feeling of concern and I think that there are really no people 
involved — either the shippers or the receivers of animals or whether 
they transport people — that are not basically interested and concerned. 



Digitized byGoOglC 



84 

Of course, in every business there are a few that will try to evade 

Senator Weicker. That's the question that I ask you gentlemen to 
give me some guidance on. Who is it, the shippers or the carriers, that 
you feel are operating behind the scenes? Believe me when I say 
this— and the ladies who were ahead of you testifying are not incor- 
rect—somebody is trying to maintain the status quo here and I'm 
willing to accept the fact that 0MB doesn't want to give the USDA 
part of the budget. OK, that's fair. I can handle that aspect. I think 
it's also clear that there are some of those that don't want any change 
in the present set of regulations. Who do you think it is ? 

Mr, Morgan. I think it's possibly somebody from almost every 
group. I think there's always people who feel that as long as things are 
going all right, don't upset the applecart and there's been a lot of worry 
recently about the economic situation, the fact that anything that 
might smack of more expenses is going to be fought by somebody. Per- 
Jiaps their worries are unjustified, but I think you will find that every- 
whei-e, I don't tliink we have any specific evidence or information of 
anybody specifically trying to do that, but there's certainly — in the 
CAB hearings which we went to, throughout much of the testimony 
which came from carriers, for instance, there was an imdercurrent of 
this wouldn't be practical ; this would cost too much ; and I think if I 
were running an airline that would be a reasonable question to raise. 
They weren't alone. On some of the provisions some of the shippers 
said this will cost us too much to get new crates, to get different crates ; 
these crates are OK ; we aren't going to do anything that means the 
animals are going to be hurt because then we lose money on the 
animals. 

But the evidence is that there are situations where people do cut 
comers and I dont know that you could put the blame to any one 
person, but certainly the chairman is correct; there are a lot of people 
who would like to keep the status quo. 

Senator Weicker. If we do enact this legislation obviously some of 
the expense is going to fall on the shipper. And obviously some will 
fall on the earner. But I don't see where it's all that much, if you divide 
it among the two. 

Mr. Morgan. And ultimately, Mr. Chairman, much of that expense 
will fall on the shipper anyway because I presume the carrier will pass 
the cost on to the shipper. 

Mr. Phillips. I would agree that I do think in working with these 
people over the years that they are all very fine and dedicated and 
sincere, but then as it comes up, as it does in treating the problem of 
animal overpopulation or animals running at larjre, the taxpayer 
doesn't want to pay additional money for the Government regulation. 
The Grovemment department has problems getting its funding and the 
transporter, the air travel or whatever agency, they are going to have 
problems if they are going to have to charge a higher rate. 

Senator Weicker. Let me make it very clear. I'm all for the shipper, 
whether it's the breeder or whoever, making a fair profit, but he also 
has to assume the expense and the carrier has to make a fair profit, too. 
I don't expect a nondog owner taxpayei' to foot the bill. I don't think 
any of us do. Everybody has got. to share a little bit of it. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



Before we go on, let me ask Mr. Dantzler if he can make his state- 
ment now so we can continue our dialog. 
[The statement follows :] 

Statement by R. T, Phillips, ExEctrtivE Dibectob of the American Ecmanb 



Mr. Cbairman and members nf the committee, my name is Bnttierford T. Pbll- 
llps, and I am Executive Director of The American Humane Association. 

liie Amerii^aii Humane Association is a ninety-nine year old federation ol more 
tban 1200 agencies dedicated to the prevention of cruelty to animals and approxi- 
mately 3000 govemmentfll agencies concerned with the protection of children 
from cruelty. Some of its member agencies are over 100 years old, others liave 
recently been formed. Some are small, depending on the efforts of dedicated 
volunteers, others are larger with tens or scores of professional workers. All seek 
to prevent cruelty to thoee who cannot always protect themselves, many perform 
important public or semi-public functions on a local, or even statewide basis. 
Almost every agency spends a large portion of its time and money on humane 
education, particuarly among school children. Many of the major cities of the 
United States engaged such societies to perform their animal control responsibili- 
ties, with excellent results in our larger metropolitan areas. Also, societies for 
the prevention of cruelty to children and affiliated public agen<4es carry on a 
large part of the burden of protecting children from abuse or neglect. 

We strongly support and urge pes£:ige of legislation such as S. 1941, S. 20TO 
and S. 2430. 

S. 1941, S. 2070 and S. 2430 to amend the Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare 
Act and the amendments incorporated in the Animal Welfare Act of 19T0 have a 
commendable purpose which many of us have been urging for a number of years. 
We have found no disagreement among organizations or groups involved with 
the handling and use of animals but rather a support of the general purposes set 
forth in the draft bills. 

The delegates assembled at the fl9th Annual Meeting of The American Humane 
Association, October 29, 1975 unanimously urged the Congress to enact into law 
a bill "intended to reduce suffering of animals during transportation on public 
and other carriers, and prohibit dog and other fights". 

Many of ns find from experience that legislation cout'hed in general terms, 
which permits the establishment of regulations and with change in such regu- 
lations as needed provides a much more workable act to carry ont the Intent 
of protecting animals and improving and providing aafepiards during trans- 
portation. Amendments to Sections 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 give the Secretary of 
Agriculture the ability and instruction to modify regulations nn necessary and 
to coordinate such regulations with existing laws and regulations of other 
departments of the government. As S. I!M1, S. 2070 and R. 2430 are studied by 
this committee and others in the Congress. I am sure there will be areas of 
concern to other governmental departments regarding existing health and inspec- 
tion procedures. 

The Animal Welfare Committee of the United States Animal Health Asso- 
elation at their meeting two weeks ago endorsed legislation a.s supported by 
the Xational Council on Animal Transimrtatioii, "extension of the Act to allow 
the United States Department of Agriculture to regulate shipment of aninmln 
in interstate commerce". It also recommended that leglKlaHon be passed to 
extend the 28 hour law regulating livestock slilinuentH by rail and boat be 
Included to cover the livestock truckers withiu the I.C.C. regulations, excluding 
the fanner owned vehicles intrastate. Init also recommended regulations on the 
care of livestock at auction. The aliove Is similar to AHA's concern with regu- 
lation of live cargo handling at airports. 

In support of lie prior statements. I would like to point out that The Amer- 
ican Humane Association was formed in 1877 by the then existing societies 
for the prevention of cruelty to animals to coordinate thpir efforts In assisting 
the government in providing protection for livestock in transit. The orlgiuiil 
law regulating the transport of livestock by railroad and barge was passed sliortiy 
afterwards and later amended and improved a^ the Act of June 21>. 191)15 t Vi 
TJ.S.C. 71-74). U.S.A.H.A. also supports impi-ovement in r^iilatioiLs to eusure 
the humane handling of horses in transit by ships to foreign ports. 

The above support of the intent of S. 1&41. S. 2070 and S. 24.S0 is reported 
to indicate the concern of national groups with the efforts of the Congress to 



Digitized byGoOglC 



meet a problem wliich all of ua are aware of and agree that the problem should 
he met head on. We have support from people and organizations Inrolved with 
the Industry involved in the use of animals for man's benefit. 

AHA has iieen making proposals to the C.A.B. regarding air transport of 
animals pointing out the need for aircraft environmental studies and training 
programs for cargo and ramp personnel. It also has supported an improvement 
In I.C.C. r^ulatlons in .support of independent livestock trackers, to provide 
better bumane control of livestock shipments. These actions are supplemental 
rather than counter to tiie interest of the legislation before us today. 

The problem of mishandling of animals shipped by an; means of transporta- 
tion, sometimes resulting in death or near death, led Tlie American Humane 
Association in 1960 to call a conference of all of the people involved nationally 
in the transportation of animals to see what steps could be taken to remedy 
the situation. As a result of these meetings and subsequent meetings, the National 
Council on Animal Transportation was formed with representatives from the 
airlines, the REA Express Agency, the truckers, the railroads, the people such 
as the animal laboratory groups represented by the American Association of 
Laboratory Animal Science, the Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 
and the humane agencies and the people who purchase or ship animals both 
In this conntry and abroad. 

As a result of xmr meetings and discussions, 'we found that individuals, be 
tliey pet owners or animal dealers, often sWpped animals in substandard con- 
tainers without sufficient instructions to cover handling of the animals should 
there be a delay in transport due to weather, mechanical difficulties or mishan- 
dling. We also found that many people orderdng or purehaEing animals would 
order them in a hurry by air forgetting that they would not be there to pick the 
animals up -when they arrived. It was also found that the shipping compartments 
on various aircraft vary from airline to airline. 

The National Council on Animal TrajiapotCation set forth standards for con- 
tainers, for handling procedures, for labelling and instructions covering every 
type of animal from mice for laboratories, cayman being shipped in the pet trade, 
by individuals, to exotic species such as lions, tigers, baboons and gorillas. 

Through AHA headquflrtflrs as a source of information for the National Coun- 
cil on Animal Transportation, all cases of mishandling tbat are reported are dis- 
seminated to all of the agencies who have a concern and an Interest. Action is 
being taken and there has been an improvement in the handling of animals. If we 
come down to apeciflcs, the percentage of animals which die or Mve to be 
destroyed is very, very low compared to the nuimheir of live animals handled 
which, of course, Includes laboratory mice and rats, rabbits, aoo animals, pet 
animals, etc. Many, many horses and cattle for show purposes or for breeding 
stoclt are shipped by air as well as by truck and railroad. 

AHA and the National Council on Animal Transportation Is concemed with 
devising regulations and procedures which .-will elimdnate ell types of stress due 
to mishandling, an that all aninrals leave and arrive in <H)timuim condition. 

Because of the Council's work, airlines have changed plane construction speci- 
ficatiMis and the FAA and CAB have established regulations to provide q)ecial 
handling tor live cargo. 

Other recommendations have been that of a special committee whldi has urged 
the need for research into the enviponment within the eargo compartments of 
aircraft which is affected not only Iiy ithe type of ventilation and temperature con- 
trol but also by the effect of other types of cargo upon live animals. It is difficult 
to estahli^ standards without facts. 

Mr. Chairman, Oomjoittee members, I have taken a few moments of your time 
with this background information to indicate that the problem ot animal trans- 
portation and tbe possible mishandling which can lead not only to a humane 
concern but to an economic loss, has engaged the Interest of many people Includ- 
ins tho-^e who raise the animals, through to those who use the animals for animal 
products for the benefit of man. As citizens of this country, all of iis are basically 
educated to humane ideals and always seeking to find ways to do a better job. 

As I mentioned, enough people representing government departments, breeders, 
shippers and consignees of animals were interested to get together in 1960 and 
have met eight times in national meetings and half a dozen tames in subcom- 
mittee meetings since that time because we were seeking cooperative ways of 
solving the problem of mishandling. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



I feel that we need legislatiom and r^ulatioiia to enforce Uie voluntary reeom- 
meniiatioas such as the lATA manual and other excellent guidelines prepared 
by the airlines, railroads, The American Humane Asaociation, etc. TJnder the 
Animal Welfare Act, the Department of Agriculture has done an admirable job 
but has been limited by their inability to enforce r^ulations at some pcrfnts 
where inadequate personnel, education, or mechanical or natural probl«ns have 
interfered with the normal flow of traffic of livestock, iocluding everything 
throu^ pets and lajborabory animals. 

It is my Interpretation lof the concern of all of these gnoupa tliat we would 
n«lcome the passage of S. 1941, S. 2070, and iS. 2430 and its iuuplementAtion. As 
pointed out above, there may he some specific areas where we will have to clarify 
the need for veterinary pre-Mhipment inspection, in the case of livestock going to 
alaught<ir, or the age limits on. certain aninmls needed in researph, but I believe 
we have enou^ initerest and conc-ern on the part of all who will be affected by 
such laws and r^ulations that these problems can be solved wltJi cooperation. 

Tlie Amerifuu Humane Association urg^ favorable action, not only by this 
Committee, but by the Congress on S, 1941, S. 2070, S. 2430 and action to imirie- 
ment the establishment of regulations and enforcement of sucb standards and 
regulations. 

Hiank you for permittJng me to present my thoughts. 

STATEHENT OF FKANTZ DANTZLEB, DIHECTOR, FIELD SEXVICES 
AND lUTESTIGATIONS, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UMITED STATES 

Mr, Dantzlee. Thank you, Mr, Chainnan. My statement is rela- 
tively brief, about 3 or 4 minutes, if I may read it. 

The Humane Society of the United States is a nonprofit national 
organization which for the past 20 years has dedicated itself to the 
prevention of cruelty to animals and advancement of the humane 
ethic. Our organizational otructure includes regional offices strategi- 
cally located throughout the United States and our constituency repre- 
sent^ the largest individual membership of any national animal 
welfare organization. We appreciate very much this opportimity to 
respond to this committee's request that we comment on the problems 
and abuses associated with the shipment of animals in commerce. 

Since two of the three bills being here addressed do contain prohi- 
bitions against dog fighting, a subject matter which is pointedly 
omitted from S. 1941, the HSUS would like to state that it thor 
oughly agrees with the obvious implication of this omission, to wit, 
that this crucial new legislation prohibiting dog fighting should not be 
approached indirectly, as one more amendment to the Ajiimal Welfare 
Act, with enforcement in the hands of the USDA. but should — 
preferably in the form of separate legislation such as that introduced 
by Senator Harrison Williams. S. 193 — be labeled a serious and sepa- 
rate crime, with the prohibition squarely included within the provi- 
sions of title 18 of the U.S. Code. In such event, the enforcement of 
the statute outlawing this vicious crime will not be intertwined with 
the inspections and regulatory duties of the USDA, but will instead 
have all of the normal force and power of the Department of Justice 
behind it. 

Now to move on to the provisions of S. 1941. S. 2070, and S. 2430. 
We surely do not feel that it would be necessary or even fruitful to go 
into detail here as to the need for legislation on these subiects. The 
case is well documented and has been the subiect of many earlier con- 
gressional proceedings. In this connection I would simplv like to 
refer the committee to the testimony of the president of HSUS. John 
A, Hoyt, to be found in the hearings conducted in September of 1973 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



before the House Committee on Government Operations, at pages 46 
through 62, and the more recent testimony presented earlier this year 
by HSUS dii-ector of reseaich and data services, Guy Russell Hodge, 
on September 10, 1975, before the House Committee on Agriculture, 
in its deliberations to H.R. 5808 — the language of which is in sub- 
stance identical to that of S. 2070 and S. 2430. 

However, we do have here today several suggestions that we feel will 
materially strengthen this iiroposed legislation that is now the subject 
of these hearings. First, as to S. 1941, the HSUS would today ask that 
the permissive language pertaininp^ to health certification be made 
mandatory, as it is in S. ^070 and S. 2430, and that the stronger 
language of S. 2070 and S. 2430 be adopted with respect to the ship- 
ment of animals less than 8 weeks of age. The presumption that ship- 
ments of dogs or cats less than 8 weeks of age should be prohibited 
unless otherwise prescribed by the Secre.tary, as set forth in S. 2070 
and S. 2430, would appear to give more protection than the language 
now found in S. 1941. 

The HSUS feels strongly that S. 1941 should not only contain the 
provision relating to c.o.d. shipments as included in S, 2070 and S. 
2430, but that this language of section 13(d) in those bills should be 
strengthened to specifically provide carriers with the authority to au- 
thorize any emergency veterinary treatment which may be necessary 
for the well-being of an animal. 

Perhaps the key advantage to be found in S. 1941 over other pend- 
ing legislation with similar goals and aims, is that this bill specifically 
strikes out the preexisting exemption for retail pet shops and stores, 
which has in the past had the effect of leaving millions of animals 
imcovered by the act and thereby unprotected. Parenthetically, Mr. 
Chairman, I presented a special report on that subject for the record. 
In addition, we strongly support the inclusion of birds as shown in 
S. 1941. 

Penultimately. the HSUS would like to see S. 1941 include the pro- 
vision found iii S, 2070 and S, 2430 requiring recommendations and 
conclusions to be made annually by the executive branch of Congress, 
"* * • concemingtheaircraftenvironment as it relates to the carriage 
of live animals in air transportation." However, we would strongly 
urge that this investigative reporting procedure not be restricted to 
questions arising from the plight of animals in air transportation and 
that it be broadened to include the same issues and questions, many of 
which remain quite unanswered to this day. concerning the actual 
conditions visited upon animals in all fonns of surface transportation. 
such as truck, rail, and ship. 

Finally, it might be here worth noting that while this proposed 
legislation, and the. Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 
and the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 basically provide the authoritv 
whereby the Secretary of Agriculture promulgates and enforces mini- 
mum humane standards in a set number of categories involving the 
handling and care of animals, the CAB has over the past sevei'al yeai-s 
been conducting proceedings whereby actual standards are being pro- 
mulgated which set minimum requirements for the handling and care 
of animals in many of these same categories— i.e. containers, feed, 
water, rest, ventilation, handling, health certification, veterinary care. 
et cetera. This CAB case, under docket No. 26310, is entitled, "Rules 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



and Practices Relating to the Acceptance and Carriage of Live Ani- 
mals in Domestic Air Freight Transportation." All major air carriers 
and shippers are involved in the proceedings and ultimately, there 
will be final tariffs adopted which will set very specific standards, will 
be binding on all domestic air carriers, and constitute a condition of 
carriage of any live animal shipment. Our point in noting this is to 
remind this committee that the CAB proceeding is restricted to ani- 
mals being transported by air and will afford no relief whatsoever to 
the millions of animals moving in commerce by other means. There- 
fore, we strongly urge the passage of this pending legislation, with 
ceitain iiioditications as suggested above, because it is so absolutely 
essential and there is no su&titute for it anywhere on the horizon. 

Senator Weicker. We have discussed the obligations that should be 
placed on the shipper relative to the crate, et cetera. We have discussed 
the obligation which should be placed upon the carriers to try to de- 
velop standards. We have discussed the possibility of the USDA in- 
volving itself in setting those standards and enforcing them, and I 
think we all recognize in the back of our minds that we can't expect 
the public at large to pay for this. 

Do any of you have any suggestions as to how you get some sort of 
a handle on t]iis whole business that's sprung up of shipping animals 
in such large volumes? As I gather the problem, we are not just talking 
about the individual owner who ships a pet here. This has become a 
big, big business involving hundreds of thousands of small animals. 
Should there be some sort of a hcense, obtained for shipping in inter- 
state commerce for which there would be a charge made ? Does anybody 
have any ideas of how you get a handle on this ? 

Mr. Dantzu:r. Senator Weicker, first of all, if I may digress just 
for a moment relative to the discussion just before I gave my statment, 
I think it's a known fact that we have to recognize that the problem 
has been brought on by a failure both of the carrier and the shipper 
to provide minimum standards. They, therefore, should be applicable 
in that regard. 

As far as extra costs that may be applied to the cost of shipment of 
animals, I most certainly believe that it should be passed on to the 
consumer; in other words, the persons that are purchasing the ani- 
mals, the individual pet owners or the retail pet industry business. 
et cetera. The cost should certainly be transmitted to the people who 
are actually using the service as opposed, of course, to the taxpayers 
who should not carry the burden for it. That would be my reaction to 
that. 

'Sir. MoROAx. I think if there were license fees, Mr. Chairman, 
either on shippers or on carriers, they would ultimately, as was sug- 
gested, be passed on to the consumer. While it might raise some ques- 
tion that it would be putting an additional burden on the consumer, 
we nro dedicated to giving minimum protection to animals and I think 
if animals are to be shipped and the decision is made by the consumer, 
thnt is the shipper to shio animals thev should pay for at least a 
minimum decrree of protection, whether it's direct cost or whether it's a 
license fee which will defray some of the Government inspection and 
£0 forth. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



90 

Senator Weicker. Let's face it, it's fine that Fay Brisk and others 

go out to the airport, but they are doing it voluntarily, where in effect 
they are subsidizing the owners that are going to get those dogs. They 
are the ones that are taking care of it. There's no getting around the 
fact that there is an expense attached and, very franMy, we're not 
talking about cows and farm animals, but we're talking about a luxury 
here as far as many of the small animals that are shipped through. I've 
got five dogs myself and I admit to the fact they are a luxury and I've 
got to take care of them and I don't think I can expect the neighbor 
to go ahead and do that job for me at all. 

Mr. Phillips, Senator Weicker, I just might add to that, perhaps 
the gentlemen following me — we have discussed this area of environ- 
mental concerns with the air carriers, the containerization and that 
quality, and we are getting some good reaction out of governmental 
agencies, be they FAA or the Department of the Army or whatever. 

Now this kind of thing we also have seen as a possible study to 
be done at the expense of the airlines or the aircraft manufacturers 
and there is some progress being made. This would be on that one 
area. Then the other, I think we all agree definitely with your think- 
ing. You're going to pass on the cost of the proper handling, the 
training of personnel on the ground, which is also another area of 
great concern— it's going to be borne by the people who are paying 
for the shipments and through the airline tariffs and that sort of thing. 

Senator Weicker, I notice in the report here of the Committee on 
Gtovemment Operations in 1973. Americans spent over $2 billion in 
1972, to buy and care for their pets. We are not talking about horses 
and cows and sheep. Transportation of ipet animals is an expensive part 
of the pet industry. It's a high-profit industry with wholesalers and 
retailers alike with estimates of the average wholesale price for dogs 
ranging from $55 to $85 and retail price of $150 to $300. That's big 
business. 

Do anv of you have any questions of any of the gentlemen that 
appeared from the Federal agencies here that you'd like to ask through 
me? 

fNo response,] 

Senator Weicker. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate 
your appearance, 

Mr. William Bergman, executive vice president, Pet Industry Joint 
Advisory Council; Dr. H. E. Kingman, Jr., executive director. 
National Society for Medical Research ; and Mr. Leo Seybold, vice 
president for Federal Affairs, Air Transport Association. 

Gentlemen, your full statements will be made a part of the record 
and I would appreciate it, only so that we can have a dialog here, 
if you could synopsize so we could get a question and answer discus- 
sion session going. With that, whoever would like to lead off, be my 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BEKGMAN, EXECTJTIVE VICE PRESIDEMT, 
PET INLUSTRT JOINT ATVISORY COUNCIL 

Mr, Bergman, Senator Weicker. my name is William Bergman, and 
I am the executive vice president for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory 
Council. Mr, Josserand, who was going to appear with me today, 
unfortunately was not able to make it, so I will pi-esent the council's 
views alone. 

As you suggested, I will attempt to summarize my st.atement. 

Senator "Weicker. It will be included in its entirety. 

Mr. Bergman. Thank you. First, let me tell you a little bit about the 
council. It was generated out of an awareness of the responsible mem- 
bers of the pet industry who recognized that there was a need for a 
forum within the industry to review its practices and to present its 
views and policies not only to its industry but also to those legislative 
and regulfrt^ry bodies which directly or indirectly aiTect the pet 
industry. 

The pet industry is a multibillion dollar industry employing tens of 
thousands of people in all 50 States as well aa in many foreign coun- 
tries. Industry members, the majority of which are small independent 
businesses, breed, acquire and/or market virtually every species of live 
animals for pets, for zoological specimens, and for biomedical research 
throughout the world. Whether breeder, manufacturer, wholesaler or 
retailer, each segment of the industry is concerned with the humane 
treatment of animals. 

Responsible members of the pet industry recognize that problems do 
exist with respect to the handling of animals and thus support the 
intent of the amendments to the Animal Welfare Act in S. 1941, 
S. 2070, and S. 2430. We do propose some minor modification of the 
laJiguage used in these bills, and, unless otherwise indicated, will 
address our remarks to S. 1941. 

In the proposed amendments to the act, section 10 of S. 1941 suggests 
standards to be promulgated by the Secretary to govern the handling, 
care and treatment of animals during transportation in commerce. 
While the council agrees that such standards concerning feed, water, 
rest, ventilation, et cetera, are necessary, it is somewhat aipprehensive 
of (iie inclusion of words such as "air pressure" which may lead to 
imiforeseen problems. Future regulations dealing specifically with air 
pressure standards may be enacted which cause inconsistencies with 
the present design and operation of aircraft. Compliance with such 
regulations would be impossible and undoubtedly force airlines to 
embargo live animals. This would be of grave consequence to the pet 
industry since air transportation is one of the best and most reasonable 
modes of transportation available to the pet industry at present, and 
is generally one of the most humane means of transportation. 

Furthermore, the proposed language in section 13(b) would require 
that each animal tendered by certain specified persons must be accom- 
panied by a health certificate. Under such requirements a shipment 
consisting of 500 rodents would need to be accompanied by 500 healtli 
certificates identifiable to each individual rodent. To keep rodent and 
certificate together would require 500 individual compartments or 
containers. For those jurisdictions requiring certificates for certain 



Digitized byGoOglC 



92 

species of animals, the certificates often run to the sliipment not to • 
eaoh animal individually. Therefore, the council agrees with section 10 - 
of S. 2070 that the language of proposed section 13(b) be amended to " 
read "dogs and cats, or additional kinds of classes of animals desig- * 
nated by regulation of the Secretary" be required to be acxiompanied I 
by health certificates. The Secretary should have the discretion to i 
determine which animals or animal shipments, other than dogs and i 
cats, need to be accompanied by a health certificate. t 

As mentioned in our testimony last year before the House Agri- i 
culture Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, no veterinarian can '■ 
certify that the animal may withstand the rigors of the intended 
transportation when he has no method of determining what condi- 
tions the shipment may experience. The health certificate should show 
that, upon examination or inspection, the veterinarian finds that the 
animals are free from visible signs of infectious disease or physical 
abnormality which would endanger the animal or other animals dur- 
ing transit. 

We therefore suggest that the certification requirements be amended 
by deleting the term "sound and healthy" and substituting therefore 
"the animal or animals appeared free of any infectious disease or phys- 
ical abnormality which would endanger the animal or animals or 
other animals during transit," 

The council supports wholeheartedly the proposed subparagraph (d) 
of section 10 of S. 2070 and S. 2430" which amends section 13 of the 
act to condition the live animal shippers' ability to utilize the co.d. 
services of a common carrier. 

The council urges that the act be expanded to provide that any 
person who advertises for sale, and/or sells in interstate commerce 
should be licensed. Furthermore, all animals in categories which are 
covered under the a^t should be protected and there should be no 
discrimination due to the ownership of the animal. The council recog- 
nizes that special waivers must be granted by appropriate regulatory 
authorities when it has been affirmatively demonstrated that excep- 
tions are warranted. 

In section 11 of S. 1941. the language specifically states that no 
standards with respect to transportation by air shall become effec- 
tive without the approval of the Seci-etary of Transportation with 
respect to flight safety. The council cautions the committee membei-s 
against, the introduction of another agency in the control of air trans- 
portation. The CAB presently has the authority to promulgate air 
transportation regulations, and by placing authority in still another 
regulatory agencv. the amendments will only serve to effect arbitrary 
regulations and further encumber the regulatory proces.s. The rights 
of the shippers to voice complaints against unfair regulation will also 
be denied, und the only recourse open to them will be through the 
Federal court system. 

Our final comments are addressed to the overall method bv which 
the amendments to the act will be implemented. Throughout the pro- 
posed amendments, the Secretary will be delegated the authority to 
promulgate rules and regulations. Various animal interests during 
the past several years have endured irresponsible and reckless rule- 
making by various Government agencies involved with live animals. 
Most recently we have seen it with the FAA and with the Department 
of the Interior. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



igmcies regi ■, but i^^^Foes invofTing Hyf Anrmatg are exter«neh 

tomfUiEs Mod et-Mk'Do^ is oot always clear. Moreover, vspectise ^ 
nore oftMi th^ not fouod fritbin the Govemneitt a^miCKe Mfxem^imf 
to rp^nlate. When we deal with animals we are isToived witb bi|^l^ 
ODotioiutl and sensitive issncs. Standards mast be detailed and m.«* w» 
qtecific. Kulemaking br the submission of written t.-omrngpts wwtJid be 
inadequate, becaa^ mlemaldii^ in stich ein'umstacictfs in hsiiaUj 
dictated br the nmnbers of letters written and not neree!E«ritT' bv their 
content, TTierefore, the Council belie\-es that it is imperative that rales 
■nd regulations invoh-inp live animals should be made following a full 
evidentiary heating in which all interested persoBS nmj be b«ud u»i 
have the opportunity for croes-esaminatiwi. 

Senator Wockeb- Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

Statemeti or VTn 

Mr. ChairmaD and Memhers of rbe Committee, ray oame is WilHaon Bec^imK 
and I am the EserutiTe Tite PresiilpDt of the Pet Indnstri Joiint ASrtsory 
CottnriL I want to thank jou for givinz me the oppofTOiiitj tt> present a few 
obserrationa and wmimeats on behalf i>f the CixiaiHl with respect ti> seTewrt 
proposed amendments t'l the Animal WeCfare -Xrt. At the <>atset. we sipfioct ttte 
comndttee in its e«i>rts to derrt.ip meamD^foi lesislatfoB for the prutectioa ot 



The Conncil was senerated ont of an awarenesst of respocvibte SR^nbers in the 
pet indivrtiy of a need for a fonim within ttie pet indnsitry to rwTiew its prattK-w 
and to present its riews and policies not only to lt» own iwittstrT, bat afe» ti> thuwe 
l^dative and regulatory bodies wtdctt directly or indirectly ailect tbe pet 
industry. 

Ttte pet industry in a mnlti-hillion doDar indoftry empioyios teas of tbon^ands 
of peofile in all Sfty states as irell as in many foreign conatrte^ ladtstry toftO' 
berfi. the majority of which are small independent btisinesses, breed, ac^jnire 
and/or market virtually every species of live animals fw pets, fur looK^i-al 
specimens, and f<>r lilo-medical research throujiiout the world. Whether breeder, 
manafactnrer. wh'>lesaler or retailer, each segment of tlie industry Is concerned 
with ttie bnmane treatment of animals. 

Tlte Conncil's role is not limited solely to the advocacy of the interests of its 
members. The Council advocates ai>propriate. well-reason«l taws, rules and regu- 
lations for the protection of the pnhlic. the environment, and for the animals 
Themselves. Such laws and r^ulations most be founded upon evidence and not 
emotion 

Responsible members of the pet indosf ry recognlBe that pri>bleats do exist with 
respect to the bandlin;? of animals and thus snpp"rt the intent of the ameiBl- 
mentK to the Animal Welfare Act In S. iftii. S. JOTO and S. 243iX We do pn<(<»ew 
nrme minor modiOcnri'W of tbe lan;ra,-)Ke used in tbe»^ iiills. »ihL unless iHber- 
wl«e indicated, will addresi^ our rMuarbs ti» S. IWt. 

The Coondl lestiSed as to the pr»l>l^m.s oF animal transportatii,>a la:^ vetir 
before the Honsp Aericultiire Suliconinuttee i>n Livestoct and Grains, .\i lh,-« 
time, the Council s-nbmitted eiteDsive data in its ceneral suM>i>rt i>f II.R. iriS4j 
then under consideration. We will ni>t repeat that testioHiny tierv. tn.a we urve 
the committee to review the rec>inl there whici is eiinally iitt>I'<'''^U> tj Ibe l«lis 
presently under consideration. 

In the proposed amendments to the Act. Sectii>n 10 of S, l!Mt siijsneits sntnd- 
ords to be promulgated liy fhe Secretary to fri>vi'rii the handling, cxire aiHl treat- 
ment of animals during tfan.i|>ortaliiin in coaimeree. While the l^H;(*^■il itjereec 
that f^tcb standards eonceminx feed, water, rest, ventilalion. etc. ate nec««stir,v. 
it is somewhat apprehensive of the inolusiiMi of words such ati '"air pressure ' 
whi(A may ipad to unA>reseea pmlileins. Future tesutations dralins siieeitk*all.* 
with air pressure standards may be euarted which cau:^ iaeuusiettmcieti with 
the present design and operation of aircraft. CompliiiBce with such rejEulatioak 
would be impossible and undoubtedly force airlines to embargo live aaimaK 
96-7 17— 76 7 



Digitized byGoOglC 



94 

This 'would be of grave consequeiice to tie pet industry since air transpartatlott 
Is one of tlie iDest aeaaonal modes of trajiaportation avalla-ble to the pet Industry 
at preseit, and Is generally one wC Hie most humane means of transportation. 

The Ootmcil "wionld also lite to point oat at this tin^ that substantial evidence 
bae been torought t» light in the CA.B. proceedings 'wMch ahows that the prob- 
lems -with loss of animals in air transportation stem not from air pressure but 
fPCOD ground 'handling of the animals both prior to and after fllghL 

In the proposed amendments to the Act, Se<3tIon 10 also provides n«w require- 
ments for health certificates. It providM fiat any animal as defined under the- 
Act delivered by certain specified persoitB for toterstat* tranaportation must be 
accompanied by a health certiflcat* issued by a licensed veterinarian. No disere- 
tiMi haa been left to the Department of Agriculture 1o eiclude by regulations 
those animals which may not need such certiflcatea. For example, the industry is 
not aware of the necessity Hiat any health certificate let alone iiidividufll health 
ceridficates, Shonld be required to accomi«Dy bamsters, guinea pigs, irabblta and 
non-human primates, the other species along wttli Aoga and cats currently regu- 
lated under Hie Act. 

Furthermoire the proposed language in ■Section 13 (to) "would require that eaeb 
animal tendered by certain e5>edfled persona must be acaunpanied Jiy a healtti 
certlflcate. Under sndi requiremifiintB a shipment consisting of 500 rodents would 
need to be ac«oaiimnied by 500 health certlflcates identifiable to each individual 
rodent. To iteep rodent and certificate together would require 500 individual 
comipartmeJita or ooatalners. For those jurisdictions requiring certlfleates for 
certain ^wcies of anjmale, the certlBieatee often run to the shipment not to caob 
animal Individually. Therefore, the Council agrees with Section 10 of &. 2070 
that tie language of proposed Sectdnni 13(b) be Amended bo reed "dogs or cats, 
or addltionitl kinds or classes of aiLimals designated by regulation of the Secre- 
tary" be required to he accompanied by health certificates. The Secretary should 
have the discretion to determine which animals or animal sdiipoients, otber than 
dogs and eats, need to be accompanied by a health certificate. 

The proposed health certificate requirement would necessitate a veterinarian 
to certify that the animal inspected was "sound and healthy." Diseases or dis- 
orders such as hip dysplasia, previous fractures, or cancer would render the 
animal technically not "sound and healthy," but would have no bearing on 
the animal's ability to be transported safely or on the safety of other animals 
during transit. The Important consideration is the prevention of transmission 
of infectious disease or jeopardizing the animals' life due to an existing physical 
condition. 

As mentioned in our testimony last year before the House Agriculture Sub- 
committee on Livestock and Grains, no veterinarian can certify that the animal 
may withstand the rigors of the intended transportation when he has no method 
of determining what conditions the shipment may experience. The health cer- 
tificate should show that, upon examination or inspection, the veterinarian finds 
that the animals are free from visible signs of Infectious disease or [diysicat 
abnormality which would endanger the animal or other animals during transit. 

We therefore suggest that the certification requirements he amended by delet- 
ing the term "sound and healthy" and substituting therefore "the anlraal or 
animals appeared free of any infectious disease or physical abnormality which 
would endanger the animal or animals or other animals during transit." 

The Council supports wholeheartedly the proposed subparagraph (d) of Sec- 
tion 10 of S. 2070 and S. 2430 which amends Section 13 of the Act to condition 
the live animal shippers' ability to utilize the COD services of a common carrier. 
Tou will undoubtedly hear emotional statements that COD shipments have caused 
horrendous problems for the animals being shipped. We contend that this is 
absolutely not so. While clearly there have been examples of abuses of COD 
shipments, those abuses constitute a very small number of the shipments that 
are being property transported under the COD services. In the Civil Aeronautics 
Board lAaMlity and Claims Rules and Practiced Investieation. Docket 19923, 
Administrative Law Judge John E. Faulk found, upim an evidentiary record, 
that the experience of the airlines demonstrated that there was no sound reason 
to deny COD services absolutely for all live animal shipments. A rule which 
provides that the shipper must guarantee transportation charges tn both direc- 
tions, plus an amount sufficient to reimburse the carrier for all out-of-pocket 
expenses In the care, feeding and handling of any live animal is proper, COD 
services as a method of marketing are essential to the live animal shipper be 
they for bio-medlcal purposes or for any other pnrposes. In the pennling Civil 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



65 

Aeronautics Bo&rd Rules \nd Practices Relating to the Acceptance and Carriage 
of Live Animals, Docket 26310, we find opposition to COD services, but we 
8tm don't find evidaice warranting its demise. Therefore, we endorse the COD 
terms of S. 2070 and S. 2430 as a condition precedent to a carrier's acceptance 
of a COD live animal shipment. 

The Animal Welfare Act, as it is now enacted, is far too limited. The Council 
respectfully urges fthat the Act be expanded to protect the animals and not to 
protect the animals' owners. If any dog breeder/broker selling to a pet shop 
shonld be licensed, then why not any dog breeder that offers its animals in inter- 
state commerce for sale? Are we protecting the animala or the owners? The 
discriminatory aspects of this act should be eliminated. ITie Act ostensibly was 
designed to protect animals, but in fact has exempted many, many animals from 
(be protection of the regulation. As the Act now reads, only animals being 
delivered by certain parties would reciuire accompanying health certificates. 
However, dogs which are advertised for sale la interstate commerce in various 
dog magazines or offered by fancy hreeders for sale in interstate commerce are not 
regulated under this Act, and would not have to be accompanied by health 
certificates. Are they more healthy and d<m't need protection ? 

The Council urgM that the Act be expanded to provide that any person who 
advertises for sale, and/or sella in interstate commerce should be licensed. Fur- 
ther, all animals in categories which are covered under the Act should be pro- 
tected and there should be no discrimination due to the ownership of the animal,. 
The Council recognizes that special waivers muat be granted by appropriate regu- 
latory authorities when it has been affirmatively demonstrated that exceptions 
are warranted. The establishment of general standards insuring humane handling, 
care and treatment of animals is essential and so are exceptions to any rule. 
Variances therefrom for laboratory animals, in the case of the eight-week rule, 
are clearly dictated by the public interest. But variances for indlvidiml pet 
owners, hobbyists, humane assocdations, pounds and commercial operators are not. 

In Section 11 of S. 1941, the language specifically states that no standards with 
resped to transportation by air shall become effective without the approval of 
the Secretary of Transportation with respect to flight safety. The Council cau- 
tions the committee members against the introduction of another agency in the 
control of air transportation. The Civil Aeronautics Board presently has the 
authority to promulgate air transportation regulations, and by placing authority 
in still another regulatory agency, the amendments mill only serve to effect 
arbitrary regulations and further encuml)er the r^ulatory process. The rights of 
the shippers to voice complaints against unfair r^ulation will also be denied, 
and the only recourse open to them will ibe through the Federal court system. 

Our final comments are addressed to the overall method by which the amend- 
ments to the Act will be implemented. Throu^i>ut the proposed amendments, the 
Secretary will be delegated the authority to promulgate rules and regulations. 
Various animal interests during the paat several years have endured Irrespon- 
sible and recldess rulemaking by various government agencies involved with live 
animala Most recently we have seen if with the Federal Aviation Administration 
and with the Department of the Interior. 

R^olations should be based upon evidence and exi>ertise of the agencies regu- 
lating, but issues involving live animals are extremely complex and the evidence 
is not always clear. Moreover expertise is more ofteo than not, not found within 
the government agencies attempting to regulate. When we deal with animals we 
arc involved with highly emotional and sensitive issues. Standards must be de- 
tailed and must be specific. Rulemaking by the submission of written comments 
would be inadequate, because rulemaking in such circumstances is usually dictated 
by the numbers of letters written and not necessarily by their content. Therefore, 
the Council believes that it is imperative that rules and regulations Involving 
live animals should be made following a full evidentiary hearing in which all 
Interested persons may be heard and have the opportunity for cross-examination. ' 

The experience of animal shippers before the Civil Aeronautics Board has 
demonstrated the necessity for potting purported "evidence" to the test of the 
evidentiary process. Half-baked studies and emotional statements must bear 
the scrutiny of cross-examination. Mere assertions as to "flimsy containers," 
"absolutely no ventilation," "pressure cookers," and so forth, absent sub.stan- 
tiating evidence are not proper for Justifying the establishment of standards 
ander a rule-making process. Hard-core data are required. Such data cannot be 
adequately tested through rule-making by written comment where the only 
avenue for challenge is in the Federal Courts. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



We have Juat concluded bearings at tbe Civil Aerona^tlcg Soard inTolrtDS 
airline rnlex for tbe acceptance aod cardace of live anlinalfi. Biiefa iiave Jiiat 
been filed tbls weefe and reapoiwes are due December 1, 1975. In the proceeding. 
Interented parties tame forward with evidence which was pnt t» the acrutlo; 
of croHN-examlnatlon and the r»lee of evidence. The Administrative Law Ji^ge 
will now have the tank of determining on balance what i^oald l>e tbe pr<^r 
rules and repilatlonB. There appears to be no necessitj for circiimrentine the 
hearing proceBs by which regulatory agencies can better develop and promul- 
frate their ruteH. TbuR, we nrge t^ia committee to amend tbe Animal Welfare 
Act to require tbe utilization of the hearing process as a cornerstone for piwnul- 
gatlng regulations under the Act. 

Mr. Cbalrman and memlierH of the committee, we thank you again for giving 
UH tbe opportunity to appear iiere today. We are willing to assist in prosijling 
anj* addlHonal information the Committee may desire. 

STATEMENT 01 HAEET E. KINGSIAN, JR., EXECTTIVE BIEECTOH, 
NATKIKAL SOCIETT FOR HESICAL RESEARCH 

T)r. KixtiMLAN. I'm next in tlie batting order. Mr. Chairman. I'm 
Harry Kiiigman, Jr., executive director of the National Society for 
Medical Research. I will also attempt to siimTnarize my statement. 

I would like to state that there are a number of representatives 
of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science who had 
lioped that they would be here to present statements at the hearing 
but, imfortunately, their annual meeting is now being held in Boston 
and the officei-s of the association felt mey had better be there than 
Iipi-e, and tliey read my statement and subscribed to it. 

I would also hope that the views oi the National Institutes of 
Health — and I noticed their absence when the departmental witnesses 
WGi-p. called — the National Institutes of Health has a great interest 
in the transportation of animals as it affects research communities 
and I had hoped that their views with respect particularly to co.d. 
sliipments and health certificates would be solicited and determined 
to see what effect that might have on that. 

The three bills, as other witnesses have stated, are similar in many 
i-espects, but yet they do have significant differences. I will not com- 
ment on the animal fighting. We would hope that something would 
lie done to eliminate that immediately. 

A very iiniJOitant differwice between 1341 and the other bills is 
contained in section !> in which it is proposed that section 10 of the 
Aniviil Welfare^ Act which deals with promulgation of standards, 
inent placed on research facilities. The act now requires research f acili- 
iies to make and retain only those records with respect to purchase, 
sale, transportation, identification, and previous ownership of Hve dogs 
and cats. We believe it would !«■ a very serious mistake to require 
research facilities to identify and keep records of previous ovmersbip 
of <'\on- rabbit, hamster, and fruinea pig which they purchase. 

It would likewise be im)x>ssiblp to comply with this requirement as 
it would include dead and enibahr.ed cats u:?ed in some teaching insti- 
tutions 

■\Vc would ur<re that the Innguage contained in S. 3070 and S. 2430 
he followed with respect to this particuhir :?wtion. 

Section 10 of the bill under consideration amends section 13 of the 
Animal AVelfarp Act which dt^ls with i>n»nulgiaiiMi of standards. 
Here again, the appitwdi taken bv the Ptile bill, S. 9070. and the 
Magnuson bill, is prefcrn'^l to th«( in S. Itm. The ilifFerences may 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



97 

appear to be minor in character, but coold be significant. We believe 
it is preferable to leave the existing authority for promulgation of 
standards as it presently exists and add additional paragi-aphs to deal 
with the standards governing transportation. 

We believe that it's imperative — and we call to the committee's at- 
tention the very significant difference in the language as it pertains 
to health certificates, minimum age of animals to be shipped, and ac- 
ceptance of c.o.d. shipments. In all three instances the circumstances 
surrounding the movement of animals to research facilities are quite 
different than those involving the shipment of animals to and from 
others covered by the act. 

Exemptions must be granted to research facilities so that young 
animals, only a few days old in some instances, can be made available 
and delivered to medical investigators. Likewise, the requirement of a 
health certificate for animals other than dogs and cats being shipped 
to research facilities does not seem to be warranted. 

I think I should point out that animals used in biomedical research 
are becoming more and more expensive. Some of this increase in cost 
is because we are now insisting on a higher quality animal, one that 
has been conditioned for the type of handling required in research 
facilities. Adding additional expense, especially if there^s not full justi- 
fication for the luided requirement, does not appear to be in the public 
interest. 

We would urge that enactment of broad authority in the statute, 
particularly with regard to standards, because there will be great diffi- 
culty in developing specific and comprehensive standards to cover the 
transportation of such a wide variety of animals and range of con- 
veyances, I think there's a great deal of expertise available to sit down 
with the people and write the standards and personally and as an 
association we stand ready to help wherever we can. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Weicker. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 



Mr. Chairman anb !MEMitERn of the Stjbcommittbb : My name Is Harry Kins- 
man, Executive Director of the National Society for Medical Researdi. 

The Xatlonal Society for Medical Reaearch is an orEanization represenHns 
scientists concerned with biological researcli and teaching in medical, agrlcul- 
tural and pharmaceutical lields. 

I appreciate very much liaylng this opportunity to testify on the bills nnw 
before your Committee which would amend the Animal Welfare .\et of 1970. 

The three bills— S. I!M1, S. 2070, and S. 2403— are siAillar in many respects 
jet have siimificant differences. 

S!. 2070 and S. 2430 would amend the Animal Welfare Act by adding a pro- 
hibition of certain animal flKhtlng ventures to the federal statiite. 

While unrelated to hlomedlcal research we of course stronsly oppose animal 
flchtinK. It is brutalizini;. detanmanizinR. disfrusting and should be stamped out 
wherever and whenever It happen.s. T\> commend the authors of legislation that 
will prohibit this practice and urce the Committee to move with dispatch in 
ohtalniiiK lt« approval. Whether the enfnrcement of prohibltione acainst animal 
tichtina should be a function of the Department of Aftriculture inspectors Is a 
(luestion that can beat be answered by those who are fully aware of the capa- 
bilities of the forces In the field. 

The three hill.s appear to be identical In the way in which the term "commerce" 
Is to be substituted for the existing language "affecting commerce" and all are 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



. designed to include "common carriers" anci persons who can be considered "inter- 
: mediate handlers." 

A very Important difference between the provisions of S. 1941 and the other 
bills i*! contained in Section 9 in which it is proposed that Section 10 of the 
Animal Welfare Act be amended to change the record keeping requirements 
I)laeed on research facilities. 

The Act now requires research facilities to make and retain only those records 
wit) raspect to the purchase, sale, transportation, Identification, and previous 
owner^ihip at live dogs and eats. We believe It would be a very serious mistalte 
to require research facilities to Identify and keep records of previous owner- 
ship of every rabbit, hamster, and guinea pig which they purchase. It would 
likewise be impossible to comply with this requirement as It would include dead 
and embalmed cats nsed at some teaching institutions. We would arge that the 
lansuige contained in S. 2070 and S. 2030 be followed with respect to this Section. 

Section 10 of the hills under consideration amend Section 13 of the Animal 
Welfare Act which deals with the promulgation of standards governing the 
humane handling, care and treatment of animals by dealers, research faciiitiea 
and exhibitors. Here again, the approach taken by the Dole bill (S. 2070) and 
the Magnuson bill (S. 2430) Is preferred to that in S. 19*1. The, differences 
inav appear to be minor in character but could be significant. We believe it Is 
preferable to leave the existing authority for promulgation of standards as It 
presently exists and add an additional paragraph — to deal with standards govern- 
ing transportation. 

One could question the advisability of attempting to identify in the statute 
all of the requirements to be considered ; such as containers, feed, water, rest, 
adequate veterinary care, etc. Details such as this are more logically a part 
of the regulatory considerations and could be authorized under the broad author- 
ity of factors the Secretary determines are relevant in assuring humane treat- 
ment in the course of their transportation in commerce." 

We believe it to be Imperative that we call the Committee's attention to very 
significant differences in the language in S. 1941, S. 2070, and 8. 2430 as it 
pertains to health certificates, minimum age of animals to be shipped and accept- 
ance of C.O.D. shipments. 

In ail three instances, the drcumstances surrounding the movement of animals 
to research facilities are quite different than those involving the shipment of 
animals to and from others covered by the Act. 

Esemptiona must be granted to research facilities so that young animals, 
only a few days old in some instances, can be made available and delivered to 
medical investigators. Likewise, the requirement of a health certificate for 
animals other than dogs and cats being shipped to research facilities does not 
«eem to be warranted. 

To require health certificates for all "animals" as is stated in Section 10 ot 
:S. 1941 and S. 2430 is felt to be unnecessary and impracticable. 

We agree in principle that injured and obviously diseased animals must 
.not be transported in commerce and that only licensed veterinarians are quali- 
fied to issue and sign certificates of health and soundness. The meaning of 
.<Krtificates of health and soundness may lead to confusion unless more fully 
, defined. It is often extremely diflicult to complete a thorough examination of 
wildlife and zoo animals prior to Shipping without endangering the life of the 
animal, veterinarian and attending personnel. This class of wild animals must 
be given special consideration. Again, if this certificate requires animals to be 
free of all signs of disease, then most commonly used laboratory animals could 
not be shipped. We refer to the common diseases such as Pasteurellosis (snuffle) 
in rabbits, Tracheobronohltis (kennel cough) of dogs and a multitude of in- 
testinal parasites which all animals have. At the other end of the si>ectrum are 
the thousands of mice, rats, rabbits, etc., that are shipped daily from suppliers 
and breeders. Certificates for each rabbit, hamster and guinea pig, or even 
attempts to identify each animal Is technically unfeasible for the limited numbers 
lot veterinarians available for such work. At the present time, we can accede 
only to the necessity and practical value of Issuing certificates for dogs and cats. 

Animals used in biomedical research are ijecoming more and more expensive. 
Some of this increase In cost is because we are now Insisting on a higher quality 
animal, one that bas been conditioned for the type of handling required in a 
research facility. Adding additional expense, especially If there Is not full justifi- 
cation for the added reqnireioest, does oot appear to be in the public interest. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



I believe eveiyane agreeB that Improvements In the Irandling of animals during 
tbeir transportation is important and reguires some form of regulatory auithoritr. 
We are pleased to support this tjpe of legislative action. 

We would nrge enactment of broad anthority in the statute since great difficulty 
wiU tie encountered in developing specific and comprehensive standards to govern 
tlie tmngportatlon of a wide variety of animals in a range of conveyances. 

There is, we believe, a substantial body of knowledge, as well as a corps of 
bighly qufjified experts available to advise on the ^tranaportation of animals 
Intended Cor use at research facilities. It is hoped that this resource will be fully 
utilized by the Department in prescribing the intended regulations. In the course 
of developing standards for the wide variety of animals which enter the channels 
of transportation, it may be feasible to provide exception for those facilities 
which regularlj maintain adequate veterinary supervision and service in connec- 
tion with shipment and recript of specific classes of animals. 

The National Society for Medical Kesearch stands ready to assist those involved 
In accomplishing this objective. 

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views to you. If we can provide 
any further information, please let us hnow. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Seybold. 

8TATEHENT OF lEO SEYBOLD, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FEDERAL 
AFFAIRS, AIE TBAKSPORT AKOCIATIOH 

Mr. Seybold. Thank you, Mr. Chaii-man. I'll be happy to summarize 
my statement also. 

Let me say on behalf of the airlines that we share the concerns of 
the subcommittee and the people that have appeared before you about 
the humane treatment of animals, and it is our sincere desire to see 
that animals that are carried by air are carried safely to their 
destination. 

Last year we estimated that in 1973 we carried about 11^ million 
shipments of animals and based on current volume it will be approxi- 
mately the same number in 1975. Less than .03 percent of the 1973 
shipments resulted in damage claims. Any injury or fatality is deeply 
regretted and I should point out that the vast majority of the animals 
arrive at their destination safely and, of course, we regret those un- 
fortunate incidents that do occur. Most of them occur prior to loading 
or after unloading. 

Three agencies regulate the air transportation of animals — the FAA, 
the CAB and the USDA. We support the concept of the bills before 
you with some amendments. We would like to see legislation. We are 
concerned about the requirement that tihe airlines must register with 
the Secretary of Agriculture, We presently have to get a certificate 
with the CAB before we can go in business to carry anything or any- 
body. We also have to get a certificate from the FAA before we can 
operate an airplane, and we don't see why we would have to register 
with the Secretary of A^culture. I don't think it would particularly 
add to the puroose of the legislation to require that we be registered. 

Similarly, we are concerned about the possible amount of record- 
keeping that might be required by the Secretary of Agriculture. At the 
present time there's an air waybill on every single air freight shipment 
and if there's a claim there's a report to the CAB quarterly and an- 
nually on every claim that is filed, and we think there's danger of 
duplicating and unnecessarily adding paperwork that -wouldn't be 
productive for the basic objectives. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



100 

We think the Secretary of Agriculture should prcwHul^ate atandards 
for the humane trea.tment of animals during their various stages of 
handling prior to and after departure from the aircraft. We also think 
the Secretary of Agriculture can furnish standards and guidelines to 
the administrator of FAA for the in-flight cMiditions that should be 
established for the transportation of animals by air in the aircraft, 
but we feel very strongly that the administrator should continue to 
issue whatever rules or regulations apply to the operation of the air- 
craft and its equipment and the conditions within it. 

The bills talk about c.o.d. shipments and we have a suggestion for an 
amendment there. We would like to be able to return a co.d. shipment 
that is not claimed within 48 hours, as a suggestion for an amendment. 

With respect to civil penalties, we donx understand why the car- 
riers' violation level is $1,000 whereas dealers and others who might 
violate the regulations the penalty would be $500. We think that's 
somewhat discriminatory. 

With respect to the annual report that would be made by the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture in carrying out the act, the annual report to 
Congr^s, we think it would he useful if he would submit his report 
with the approval and recommendations of tlie Board and the FAA 
with respect to the implementation of any changes in the law that 
should be needed after experience with the law. 

In connection with the language on animal fighting, we believe the 
word "Icnowingly" should be inserted in subsection 26(b) as it is in 
ii6(a), because otherwise the carriers might be held accountable for 
something they had no knowledge of. 

In connection with the definition of "dealers" in S. 1941, I was 
happy to hear the chairman state there was an inadvertent error, that 
carriers were inadvertently included in the definition of dealers and 
that would be eliminated. 

That completes our statement and we would be happy to cooperate 
with the committee or answer any q 

[The statement follows:] 

Statement q 

My name Is 1*0 Seybold, I am Vice President — Federal Affairs of the Air 
Transport Association of America. Th<j Assoeiation is a trade and service organl- 
station representing virtually all of thR U.S. scheduled airlines. 

I appreciate the opportnnity to appear before the Subcommittee on behalf of 
our other member carriers to comment on the Animal Welfare Act Amendments 
and to sMggest certain changes. 

The airlines share the concern of the Suboommittee over the humane treat- 
ment of animals. It is our sincere desire to assure that pets and animals which 
are shipped by air are transported safely. 

The airline industry believes that it is providing an Important service both to 
individoal citizens who may need or want to transport pets by air and to the 
various commercial enterprises which ship animals throughout the United States. 
Roth the individual dtizen and the commercial shipper depend on the airlines for 
the safe transixirtation of these animals. It is partially out of this dependence, 
along with our concern over the humane treatment of animals, that we appear 
before you today to testify on the Animal Welfare Act Amendments. 

On the basis of a survey made by the Association it has t>een estimated that 
the airlines carried an averajie of approximately 3,735 animal shipments per 
day in 1973. It should be noted that the term shipment may refer to one animal 
or, as in the case of baby poultry, hundreds of animals. This figure is conserva- 
tive since it is based on an examination of carco wavbills and does not include 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



animalH Hucli as household pets, which are carried under the provisions of baggage 
tariffs. Based on this survey we estimate that the airlines carried approximately 
one and one-half million animal shipments in 1973. Less than ^oo of 1% of the 
1973 shipments resulted in damage claims. Any injury or fatality is deeply 
regretted. We should point out, however, tliat the vast majority of live animals 
Bliipped by air arrive at their destination safe and sound. Of the limited number 
of unfortunate incidents which do occur, very few can be attributed to condi- 
tions or activities on board the aircraft. Most of these incidents can be traced 
to circumstances which occur prior to loading or after unloading. 

TTiree Federal agencies liave jurisdiction over the air transportation of ani- 
mals : the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, and 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Civil Aeronautics Board controls trans- 
portation rates and tariff provisions ; the Federal Aviation Administration has 
broad jurisdiction over the aircraft, its operation and stowage procedures : and. 
the Department of Agriculture has authority to inspect shipments up to the 
point of delivery to the common carrier. 

The carriers have taken the initiative to improve conditions for the air trans- 
portation of animals through CAB tariff procedures. However, because of shipper 
protests, there have been delays in carrier efforts to secure approval of these 
tnrlffs which incorporate more effective standards for the documentation, accept- 
ance, delivery and container izatlon «f animals for air shipments. 

Mr. Chairman, the Air Transport Association supports the concept of the bills 
before you today because we sincerely believe that legislation of this type could 
Inijtrove existing shipping standards and provide safer sliipment of animals. 
However, we would like to surest amendments which we believe are necessary 
to tiialie the legislation both more feasible and practical In implementation. 

Our major concern with all three bills is the unnecessary amount of duplica- 

' tion required by each bill. Ineressing the amonnt of tiureaucraey and paper work 

does not automatically produce an improved transportation system for animals. 

REGI8TBATION 

The bills would Include "intermediate handlers" and "common carriers" as 
part of a select group, including research facilities and unlicensed exhibitors, 
n-ho must register with the Secretary of Agriculture In accordance with any rules 
and regriiations which he may prescribe. 

This proposal poses a deflnlte problem to the air carriers. Tlie need for regis- 
tration of research facilities and unlicensed eihibitors is clear. They must be 
readily identifiable to the Secretary. However, air carriers are already registered 
in innumerable places and carefully certificated by both the FAA and the CAB. 
J«ngthy and detailed certificatiou proceedings result in air service being closely 
regidated at all times by the Federal Government. 

The purpose of this legislation would clearly not be served by the addition of 
air carriers to the limited group now required to register with the Secretary of 
Agriciilture. Such a requirement would merely add redtape without improving 
animal transportation. 

BEC0RDKEEPI?(O 

Air carriers are also concerned about duplication of recordkeeping which could 
be engendered by this legislation. Air carriers currently issue airtoills on each 
air freicbt shipment. Carriers are also required to and do file with the Civil 
Aeronautics Board records of lessor damage claims. We believe that these records 
and reports are adequate to reflect the air transportation aspects of animal 
shipments. 

However, air carriers are concerned because, in addition to the records re- 
quired by the Civil Aerimautics Board, the bills under consideration would re- 
quire that common carriers, among others, keep such records as the Secretary 
of Agriculture may prescribe with respect to various aspects of the handling 
and transiHtrtation of animals. In addition. S. 1941 would require the Secretary 
of Agriculture to prescribe forms upon which tbe information is to he kept. 

The danger inherent in these provisions Is that under the broad powers be- 
stowed upon the Secretary in this instance, he could require extensive and burden- 
some recordkeeping on the part of the cnrricrs which would be time-consuming, 
duplicative, and expensive without contributing to the improved health, safety or 
trnnsporlatlon nf nnininls. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



Air common carriers carrentl? maintain extensile records on animal shipmente. 
If tbe Secretary detenuiiies further Information is needed, It should be apisoved 
and effected ithrongh the appropriate r^ulatory authority, which, In the case irf 
air carriers, would be the CAB, 



We fully agree that the Department of Agriculture, with its line staff of veteri- 
narians, has the knowledge and expertise to develop standards necessary for the 
care of animals. The Department should regulate, to the extent necessary, stand- 
ards for the humane treatment of animals during 'tlie various stages of handling 
prior ito boarding the aircraft. The Department can furnish Information on in- 
transit physical requirements to the Federal Aviation Administration of the 
Department of Transportation for its use in promulgating regulations with regard 
to the In-fllght care and treatment of animals. However, we feel very strongly that 
the FAA of the Department of Transportation should issue any regulations which 
deal wltii flight safety or wMch affect the aircraft or its equipment, as it does at 
present There should be no diminnition of the absolute authority of the Adminis- 
tration in this area. The Department of Agriculture does not have the knowledsre 
to determine what Is or is not economically practical or technologically feasible 
with regard to the aircraft. 

C.O.D. SHIPMENTS 

S. 2070 and S. 2430 would permit CO.D. shipments only where the consignor 
guarantees in writing all transportation charges. The restrictions placed on thia 
type of transportation make shipping by C.O.D. feasible for the carriers and we 
strongly endorse this provision. We would, however, recommend that a pnovision 
be included permitting the carriers to return any animal shipped C.O.D. and not 
claimed within a period of 48 hours. 

If a carrier were to return a shipment after what it deemed was a reasonable 
period of time and the consignee thereafter appeared for the shipment, a great 
deal of confusion and litigation over the party responsible for the costs of 
transportation would ensue. The 48-hour time limit would alleviate this confu^on. 

CniL PEKALTIE8 

There is a great Inequity in S. 2070 and S. 2430 which provide for the as.se«s- 
ment of olvil penalties against intermediate handlers and carriers of up to $1,000 
for each violation of any regulation that would be Issued by the Secretary of 
Agriculture In connection with this Act. The law presently allows the Secretary 
to Impose a cease and desist order on any persons other ithan Intermediate 
handlers and carriers. Failure to comply with a cease and desist order carries a 
fine of only $500 per violation. The airlines oppose this inequitable and discrim- 
inatory differentiation In penalties and we would recommend that the same 
penalty proyisions be applied to all persons coming within the jurisdiction of the 
Act 

ANNUAL REFOBT 

These two hills, S. 2070 and S. 2430, also require the Secretary to provide in his 
annual report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House 
recommended changes in the aircraft's environment as it relates to the carriage 
of live animals. We in the airline Industry believe that the Federal Aviation 
Administration's advance consideration of the Secretary of Agriculture's recom- 
mendaUons would be beneflctal. Again, the Federal Aviation Administration is 
in a particularly advantageous portion to consider any and all suggestions con- 
cerning the aircraft's environment. The report submitted by Agriculture would 
have far greater value to the Congress if It had received the approval of the 
FAA, Therefore, we request that the FAA be required to approve any recom- 
mendations forwarded by the Secretary to the Congress concernli^ the aircraft's 
environment 

Mr. Chairman, the final point upon which I wish to comment is one unique to 
8. 1941, and one which the airlines vigorously OE^K^e. Section 4(c) of tbe bill 
brings common carriers within the definition of the term "dealer," a provision 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



fat no oUier House or Senate amendment, to my Imowledge. This action wonld" 
have aeiloua and far-reacbing consequences on the entire U.S. airline Induetry. 

Hie airlines are not "dealers' in animals. By inciading common carriers in 
tlte term "dealers," the airlines would be reqtiired to obtain licenses from the 
D^tartment of Agriculture by virtiie of Section 3 of the existing Act. This addi- 
tion^ licai^nK of air carriers would be an unnecessary and unproductive esten- 
idaa of the Federal Government's regulatory powers. As we have previously 
pointed out, air carriers must obtain a certificate of public convenience and 
necessity from the Civil Aeronautics Board before they can hold themselves out 
to the public. Also they must be licensed by the Federal Oovemment through the 
VAA'b certification process. The FAA has complete authority to regulate the 
(^eratlon of the aircraft to enforce such regulations. 

If the 'Department of Agriculture were given the authority to license air car- 
riers It would be duplicating in many respects the certification process of the 
PAA and thereby unduly delaying the individual carrier's ability to utilize its 
equiinnent. 

The Department of Agriculture's jurisdiction over air carriers should be 
limited to those matters most directly concerning the shipment of live animals 
and its authority should not unnecessarily duplicate functions of the Department 
of Traneportfltion. 

- The inclusion of common carriers in the definition of "dealers" in 8. 1941 will 
disrupt the orderly regulation of the airlines. At a time when efforts are being 
made to move away from over-regulation, government bureaucracy and ineffi- 
ciency, this provision would move in the opposite direction. We strongly urge 
the Committee to delete this particular provision. If it remains in the legislation, 
Mr. Chairman, the airline Industry will be compelled to oppose the bill in its 
entirety. 

(Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity 
to appear on behalf of the U.S. scheduled airline industry to support the l^sla- 
tl»m before this committee with the amendments we have suggested ; and, I will 
be [deased to answer any questions. 

Senator Weicker. I dont want to keep people iher« any longer than 
we have to. Is there anybody that came here to testify outside of those 
I have already called ? 

fNo response.] 

Senator Weicker. Let me ask all of you one question. Do you feel 
that this is something that should be handled by legislation or should 
it be left to a voluntary system ? 

Mr. Setbold. I would be happy to answer for the carriers. I think 
fihe voluntary system has shown improvement, a definite improvement, 
and I think it must be continued, but we would support legislation. 

Mr. KiNGBiAN, My answer may sound a little inconsistent. I think 
tliat the carrier, the common carrier, the intermediate handler thing 
requires legislation. I do believe we are broadening the Animal Wel- 
fare Act to such an extent by bringing in additional areas to be regu- 
lated that unless we are very, very careful and leave the making of 
regulations to the Department rather than trying to write them into 
the statute we may be putting some things into the law that will seri- 
ously affect medical research, and this would be something I'm sure 
you dont want to do. 

Mr. Bergman, Senator Weicker, obviously everybody would hope 
that voluntary efforts would prove effective. In this case I thinli that 
tboee efforts are improving. We do support the legislation. We feel it 
is necessary witih tlie proviso that the rulemaking procedures of the 
evidentiary hearing be adapted so that sufficient input and comment 
can be made. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions of you gentlemen. I 
thank you for giving your time. 



Digitized byGoOglC 



104 

L.et me state to all those who appeared, Ko. 1, Dr. Kingman, any of 
your people that happen to be away at this convention, if they have 
any statements to submit, please tell them to do so. Tell them write the 
committee and it will be part of the record just as if they were here. 

No. 2, if there ore further questions, not only to this panel but U> all 
the others that appeared here, the committee will be in touch with you 
and I hope you will give ns a written response. 

I think one thing is clear or should be clear to everybody. It's not 
going to be voluntary. So what we want to do is do a good job legis- 
latively, recognizing the various interests that are involved here. I'm 
not here to demagogue against the airline industry or against pet 
breeders or against anyone. I think we are here to take a situation that 
has come to the fore in the past years and do something about it in an 
intelligent, commonsense way. That certainly is my objective legis- 
latively, something all of us will have input to and we will come up 
with something that works. Therefore, I would hope if there are 
further questions that I or my staff have, that we can be in communica- 
tion with you so you can give answers that will make sense. 

Dr. Chaloux, just on© last question addressed to you before we leave 
here. AVhat do you say to the proposal of licensing of these pet breeders 
that deal in interstate commerce? 

Dr. Chaloux. The commercial pet breeders are already licensed 
under the Animal Welfare Act. 

Senator Weickee. And what is the cost of that license? 

Dr. Chaloux. It's variable depending on the volume of business that 
the dealer conducts. 

Senator Weicker. How does that relate, Mr. Bergman, to what you 
were suggesting here? 

5Ir. Bergman. Senator, the legislation and the licensing act only 
requires breeders to be licensed if they sell animals wholesale. "We 
believe that there are a number of other dogs being shipped for sale 
but not necessarily through pet stores—fancy breeders is an example— 
and we believe they should be covered under the act as well so every- 
body is under the same umbrella. 

Senator Weicker. OK. Tliank you all very much. We will try to do 
a good job with it. 

[Whereupon, at 3 :40 p,m., the hearing was adjourned.] 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS 

Stateuent of the Abgociation of American Railroads 

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is a voliiutarv unincorporated 
non-profit organization composed of member railroads operating in the United 
States, Canada, and Mexico. Its members operate 97 percent of tlie trackage 
employ 98 percent of the workers, and produce 97 percent of the revenueh of 
all Class I Railroads In the United States. The railroads provide the transporta 
tiOD necessary for many types of animals, including pets, animals used for 
research and exhibition, and livestock. 

S. 1941, S. 2070, and S. 2430 seek to amend the Federal Laborator.v Animal 
Welfare Act of August 24, 1966 (89 Stat. 350, as amended by the Animal Welfare 
Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1560 ; 7 U.S.C. 2131-2155. 

These bills would amend the Animal Welfare Act to inclnde regulation of 
"intermediate handlers" and "common carriers" by the Secretary of Agriculture 
in the transportation of warm-blooded animals, other than livestock, used or 
intended for use for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, 
or as pets, S. 2070 and S. 2J30 are almost identical, and 8. 1911 is similar to 
both, but it has some important differences. 

One provision of S. 1941 not contained in either S. 2070 or S. 2430 ia Section 
28(3) which proposes a number of amendments to the word "dealer". The defini- 
tion of the word "dealer" would be amended by deleting the words "except as a 
common carrier". As presently worded, the definition reads ". . . any person 
who for compensation or profit delivers for transportation, or transports ejrept 
as a common carrier . . . any animals . . . ." The exception hi the present 
definition is not meant to exclude dealers from regulation who are also common 
carriers ; rather the exception exists simply to avoid possible inclusion of com- 
mon carriers within the scope of the tlefluitlon of "dealers". S. 1&+1. in Section 4, 
amends the Act to include a definition of common carriers. There is no need, 
and it is entirely Inappropriate, to define the word "dealers" in such a way 
that common carriers may fall within that definition. For example. Section 3 
of the Act (7 U.S.C. S 2133) requires "licensing" of dealers and exhibitors. 
Because of tlie amended definition of dealers, this section may be interpreted 
to require liceiiBing ot common carriers "who for compensation or profit . . . 
transport . . . any animals." Another example is found In Section a of the Act 
(7 U.S.C. S 2133), which proyides that "no dealer or exhibitor shall . . . dispose 
of any dog or cat witldn a period of five business days after the acquisition 
of sudi animal . . . ." There is simply no logical basis for defining "dealer" In 
8«ch a way as to possibly subject common carriers to this requirement. The 
rinuHe "except as a common carrier" In the present definition of "dealer" sliould 
not be deleted. It does not serve to exempt certain dealers; it simply removes 
possible application of certain provisions of the Act to common carriers when 
the Intent is to subject only dealers, exhibitors, and the like. 

All three bills would directly affect common carrier operations in a number of 
other areas. Section 7 of S. 1941 (Spetion 6 of S. 2070 and S. 2430) would amend 
the Act to require that all common carriers that transport "animals" must 
register with the Secretary of Agriculture. We question the value of imposing 
this requirement on the railroads, and we recommend that the railroads not he 
required to so register. Section 9 (Section 8 of S. 2070 and S. 2430) requires 
common carriers to maintain such records as the Secretary may prescribe. This 
provision appears to be unnecessary since Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act 
(7 U.S.C. S 2140) already Impo.-ies a similar requirement on dealers, exhibitors, 
and research facilities. The railroads should not be required to maintain recnrdi 
with respect to purchase, sale, transporta I ion, identification, handling, and 
tjrevlous ownership, when that same information is already maintained by others. 
Section 10 of S. 1941 directs the Secretary to prescribe standards to govern the 
transportation, handling, care, and treatment of animals, which standards may 
prohibit transportation of anlm:tls less than eight weeks old or animals not ac- 
companied by a veterinary certificate attesting to the animal's sound health. 
(105) 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



Sections 9 and 10 of S. 2070 and S. 2430 also direct the Secretary to prescribe 
standards to govern tbe transportation, handling, care, and treatJnent of animals, 
but in addition, those sections proliibit transportation of animals wlien the cost 
of the animals or the freight charges are to lie paid upon delivery. 

Section 12 of each of the bills would amend the Act to direct Inspection by the 
Secretary of common carrier facilities and records to assure compliance with the 
Act or regulations promulgated thereunder and authorizes the Secretary to have 
any animal, suffering as a result of violation of the Act or regulations promul- 
gated thereunder, destroyed. The railroads object to the broad regulatory au- 
thority these sections would grant to the Secretary of Agriculture. All three bills, 
and the sections discussed in this and the preceding paragraph In particular, 
direct that the Secretary be given an unnecessarily wide scope of powers over 
the transportation, handling, care, and treatment of animals other than livestock. 
Depending on tbe extent and scope of the regulations issued by the Secretary, 
registration, recordkeeping requirements, and inspection of facilities may inter- 
fere in the efficient day-to-day operations of the railroads. Especially in the case 
of individual railroads hauling only limited numbers of such animals, the re- 
quirements may well be unnecessarily burdensome. We recommend that the rail- 
roads not be included within the scope of tiiese three bills. By continuing to 
monitor the handling of animals both before and after shipment, the Secretary 
shotild be able to ensure their safety. 

Section 13 of S. 1941 provides for a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for each 
knowinglji committed violation of the Act or any regulation Issued pursuant to 
the Act. The penalty provisions of S. 2070 and S, 2330 incltide a civil penalty of 
up to $1,000, but there is no requirement that the alleged violaHons of the Act 
be done knowingly. Knowledge should be made essential ; especially as applied 
to condition of the animals and their future use after the carrier delivers them. 

For example, under Section 15 of S. 2070 aud S. 2430, it Is made nnlawful to 
"receive . . . for purposes of tranaportatipn . . . any . , . anlmial for purposefl 
of having the • • • animal pajitidpate In « fighting venture." Violations are 
punishable by fines of up to $5,000 and prison terms of up to one year. As applied 
to the railroads, such a provision is unjustified ibeeause It maltee the carrier 
responsible for some event (an animal fight) wilch may or may not occur after 
delivery and, thus, after the contract for transportaHon has been entirely ful- 
lllled. It Is one thing to attempt to regulate the promoiteirs of and iiartielponts in 
animal fl^itdng vultures, but it is quite another to place liability upnn one who 
merely accepts freight fOr shipment and transports tihat freight to destination. 

To sura up, the definition of "dealers" in the Act ^ould not be ame'uded as 
proposed in S. 1941 so as not to exclude (tliat is, possibly Include) common car- 
riers. There is ftl>siolutely j»o basis for doing so. Also, the penalty provisions should 
require a "knowing" violation of the Act, as is provided in S. 1941 ; and the 
application of any penalties as proposed In 'S. 2070 and S. 2430 for comm-on cai^ 
rienrs relating to animal fighting ventures is entirely inappropriate. But, of greater 
Importance, the railroads oppose these bills because the railroads would unneces- 
sarily become subject to regnlation by still another agency. A preferable alterna- 
tive would be more effe<*ive Jegulation of ISiose persons already Siubject bo the 
Animal Welfare Act. Eallroad <«)erations today are more than adequately 
regulated by the Interstate Commerce Oommisslon and the Department of 
Tranaport:aitlon. 

Statement of the Academy of Phabmaceittical Sciejices 

The Academy of PharmaceTitical Sciences of the American Phntmaceutlcal 
As8ociatl<ai, is a natiiwial scdentiflc society with members in hotli academia and 
industry whose sdentlflc studies rely uipon responses elicited in dr^ra. cats and 
other animals. We are very much Interested in 8. 1941, S, 2070 and S. 2430 which 
are bills to amend the Aet of August 24, 1966 (P.L. 89-544), as amended by the 
Ajdmal Welfare Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-579). 

Overall we agree with the intent of the proposed legislation, but we are (Con- 
cerned about several areas discussed In the following comments which should be 
considered by your cmnmlttee. 

We are also concerned about the economic Impact of this legislation. President 
Ford haa requested that economic facOors be considered in the drafting of new 
rules and regulation, TTie possible cost Increases rrom these bills are tied to surfi 
things as new rules for veterinary caj«, transportaition, handling, and reoord- 
keeping. AM these possible cost Incieasee will ult^oately be boime by oousumeis. 



Digitized byGoOgIC 



OOHHENTS OIT B. ie«l 

Section H6), Intermediate handler 

Fnrtber clariflcation Is desirable in the definition of an "Intermediate liandler." 
The proposed deOnitlon lacks clarity, and appears to be too dependent upon 
exclnsions. In conseqorace, it la possible that more IndiriduHls and companies 
might be intruded in tbis clasaiflcatlon than are intended by the sponsors. 
Section S. Recordkeeping 

The proposed recordkeeping requirement liaa tlie potential to increase the cost 
of research by a significant amount. We urge than an exemption, such as that 
which now appears in Section 10, PJL. 89-544, as amended, be made for research 
facilities. 
Section 10(l)--{i). Humane itandarda for animaU 

The proposed reTlalons itemize factors for which the Secretary would be di- 
rected to promulgate minimum standards to goyem the care, handling, treatment 
and transportation of animals in commerce. The Academy agrees that the Secre- 
tary should be authorized to promulgate such standards. However, it Is our 
opinion that the Secretary should determine the factors for which minimum 
standards should be established rather than listing some specific factors In the 
bill. Such action would accord more recognition to the serious difficulties inherent 
in tlie development of comprehensive transportation and environmental standards 
fur the several classes of animals in commerce. 
Section 10(i). A.ge of animaU transported in commerce 

The Academy urges that an exemption be given to registered research facilities 
witli regard to tbe age limitations proposed in S. 1941 for the transportation of 
animals In commerce. This could be accomplished by amending the last sentence 
of proposed paragraph (b) on page 6, line 24, to read as follows : "Such standards 
may prohibit the transportation in commerce except to registered research facili- 
ties of dogs, cats and other designated animals * * * without adverse effects." 
Section 10(it. Veterinary certification 

Animals transported In commerce to registered research facilities should be 
exempt from the requirements for veterinary certification. Research facilities 
must frequently purchase specific animal models to complete accepted experi- 
mental and regulatory protocols. For Instance, animals with various types of 
sarcomas are required for cancer research ; hypophysectomized animals are re- 
quired for potency evaluation of corticotropin preparations ; and adrcnalecto- 
mized animals are specified to determine the potency of adrenal cortex extracts. 
Further, the expenditures for Identification and inspection of each of the thou- 
sands of guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits and rats that are shipped each day 
from breeders and suppliers to registered research facilities, would impose un- 
justifiable and unwarranted Increases upon the costs for research studies. 

COUU3IITS OIT B. SOTO 

Section t. Animal fighting ventures 

Animal fighting ventures, particularly dog fighting, are unrelated to biomedical 
research. The Academy favors the proposed prohibition of such ventures, and 
encourages Incorporation of the proposed legislation into the Animal Welfare 
Act, P.L. S9-344, as amended. 
Section 5. Intermediate handler 

Further clarification is deeiraMe In tile definition of an "intermediate handler." 
The proposed definition lacke clarity, and appears to be too dependent upon 
exclusions. In oonseguence, It Is possible that more individuals and companies 
might be Included in this cJaeslfieation than are intended by tiie sponsor. 
Section 8. Recordkeeping — Intermediate handlers and carriers 

A more precise definition of the term "intermediate haniilprs" la urged. Such 
a definition would preclude interpretation of the bill to include "Recordkeeping" 
by more Individuals and companies than is Intended by tbe sponsor of the bill. 



Digitized by Google 



108 

8ec(io» 9. Promulgation — Humane standards 

The development of comprehensive tpansportatwm and envliymmental stondards 
for "tJie ■several classes of animals in couiiuerce will present serious diClcultiee. It 
would be desirable if the Seoretevy wouW «ollcit, and employ, tlie knowlert^e 
available among the many highly qualifled e^tperts In academia and industry 
vrh«n these proiposed standards are drafted. 
Section 10. Veterinary oertificalion 

Animals transported in commerce To registered research facilities slionld Iw 
exempt freum the reciuirements foe veterioaa? certificaCkm. Research facilities 
must frequently purchase specific animal models to complete accepteii experi- 
mental and regTjlatory protocols. For instance, animals with various types of 
sarcomas are required for cancer researeh ; iiypophysectoniized animals are 
required for potency evaluatitma of cort[cii>t.ropin preparations; and adtenalec- 
tomiaed animals are specified to determine tie 'pi>tency of adrenal cortes esfcracts. 
Ftirfher, the expenditures for Identiflcatioa and inspection of eat* of the tliou- 
Hands of guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, rabMts and rats that are dipped each day 
from breeders and su:W)ller3 to registered j-eseareh facilities, would imitose 
unjustifiable and unwarranted Increases upon the coets for reeeartli studies. 
Hection 10. Transportation charges 

The Academy urges that research facilities be exempted Prom provisions of 
proposed paragraiiJi (d). The requirements for supi)lring payment giiaTantees. 
as required by this paragraph, n"ould iucrease the cost of research efPoPts It 
significant amounts. We Tespectfully suggest that the means to achieve the 
intent of this proposal are presently Included imdeir Sections 6, 9 and 20 of P.L. 
89-544, as amended. 
Hection 16. Anitnal fighting 

Full support is given to the ii«;orporatii>n of proposed Section 26, ivhich deals 
with animal fighting ventures, into the Animal Welfare Act, P.L, 8&-W4, as 
amended by P.L. 91-578. 

CO^IMe.NTS ON B. 3430 

Section 2. Animal fighting 

The ppohiliition of animal fighting is encouraged ; therefore, support i.s given 
to the ppoposai to incorporate the ppopi>.>5ed legislation into the Animal Welfare 
Act, P.L. 8!>-544, as amended. 
Section o. Intermediate handler 

Further clarification is desiral)le in the definition of an "intermediate handler.'' 
Tha i>roiposed definition lacks clarity, and a^ipears to be too dependent ui>on 
esdnsioa-!. In consequence, it is possible more individuals and companies might 
be Included ia tbis classifieatJon than are intended by the sponsor. 
Seotlon 8. Recordkeeping — Intermediate handlers and carriers 

The Academy urges a more precise definition of the tenn "Interiiediate ban 
dler." This action would preclude interj'retatinn of the bill to include Retord 
keeping'' by more indmduals and companies than is mtended by the sponsor of 
the bill. 
SecHon 9. Standards 

The promulgatl'on of stindards to govern tnn^poirtation in commerce of all 
clasHes of aniniale will present senons difflcultich The definition of adi 

quate veterinary care m transit could cause untonard eoinfusion and per 

haipa should be clarified to indicate the intent i-, to assure the use of ?ound and 
humane animal care standards 
Section 10. Veterinary certtficati-on 

Animals transi>orted in ci*mmerpe to regi«'"ered rp'Waroh facilities should lie 
exempt from the requirements for veteniiary certification Ee'^eareh facilitie-' 
must freiiuently purchase -specific animal models to comiplete accepted experi 
mental and r^ulatory protocols For instance animal? with various types of 
sarcomas are required for cancer jesearch , hypophjaectomized ammala are 
required for potency evaluation of corticotropin preparations; and adrenalec- 
tomiaed animats are specified to determine the potency of adrenal cortex extracts. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



Further, Uie expend itutres for identification and iirapection of each of the thou- 
sartdx ot guinea pigs, bamxtere, mice, rabbits and rats tliat are sbii^ied each da.v 
from breeders and suppliers to registered peseardi facilities, would impose 
uujustiflai>le and unwarranted increasea upon the costs for research studies. 
Section 10. Transportation charges 

TQie Acfldemy urges 'that research facilities be exempted from provisions of 
ppcqjosed paragraiJi (d). The requirements for supplying .pajment guarantees, 
aa required by iSiis paragraph, would increase tlie cost of researrii efforts by 
significant amounts. We re.'q>ectfully suggest the means to achieve the intent of 
Vbia proposal are presently incliHled under Sections 6, 9 and 20 of P.L. 89-544, 
as amended. 
Section IS. Anin%^ fighting 

The Academy supports iu««iK>ratl«u of the .proposed Section 26 Into the Animal 
Welfare Act, P.L. 8&-S44, aa amended. 

Statement op Frederick C. ARHaTHONC, Ph. D. 

As a i*armaoologist, with over twenty-flve yeans of esperience in both acade- 
mia and Industry, whose scientific studies and experiments rely upon reapraises 
elicited in dogs, cats and other animal species, I am an .Interested person with 
respect to S. 2430, June 13. 1975, which Is a Bill to amend the Act of August 24, 
1966 (P.L. 89-544), aa amended l>y the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-579). 

<My cnnunents deal with speciflc Sections of S. 2430 as individual entitles in 
the order of presentatiiDO). 
Section 2. Animai fighting 

The prohibition of animal fighting is encouraged, theirefore aapport Is given to 
the proposal to incoivorHte the proposed legislation into the Animal Welfare Act, 
P.L. 89-544, as amended. 
Section S(i). Intermediate handler 

Further clarification is desirable in the definition of an "intermediate handler," 
The proposed definition lacks clarity, and appears to be too dependent upon ex- 
clusions. In consequence, it Is possible more individuals and companies might be 
included lo this classification than are intended by the sponsor. 
Section 8. RecordJceeping — IntermeMate handlers and carriers 

I ur^e a more precise definition of the term "intermediate handler." This action 
would preclude Interpretation of the bill to include "Recordkeeping" by more 
Individuals and companies than is intended by the sponsor of the bill. 
Section 9. Standards 

The promulgation of standards to govern transportation in commerce of all 
classes of animals will present serious difficulties. The definitions of ". . . ade- 
quate veterinary care . . ." In transit could cause untoward confusion, and 
perhaps should be clarified to Indicate the Intent is to assure the use of sound 
aud humane animal care standards. 
Section 10. Veterinary certification 

Animals transported In commerce to registered research facilities should t>e 
exempt from the requirements for veterinary certification. Research facilities 
must frequently purchase specific animal models to complete accepted eiperi- 
mental and regulatory protocols. For instance, animals with various types of 
aarcomas are required for cancer research ; hypophysectomized animals are re- 
quired por potency evaluations of corticotropin prei>arations ; and adrenalecto- 
mlzed animals are specified to determine the potency of adrenal cortex extracts. 
Further, the expenditures for identification and inspection of each of the thou- 
sands of guinea pigs, haniaters. mice, rabbits and rata that are shipped each day 
from breeders and suppllera to registered research facilities, would impose on' 
justifiable and unwarranted increases upon the costs for research studies. 
Section 10. Transportation charges 

I urge that research facilities be exempted from provisions of proposed para- 
graph (d). The requirements for supplying payment guarantees, as required by 
this paragraph, would Increase the cost of research efforts by significant amounts. 
I respectfully surest the means to achieve the Intent of this proposal are pres- 
eotii' Included under Sticttuu 6. 9 and 20 of P.L. 8&~544, aa amended. 



nu-ri" -itt- 



Googlc 



Section 15. Animal fighting 

I snpx>ort Incorporation of the proposed Sectton 26 into the Animal Welfare Act^ 
P.L. 8&-644, as amended. 

I AiTiMAi. Welfabe and the 

There is a certain bitter Irony in the Indisputable fact that probably the most 
unprotected of domestic animals are those creatares forced into protection of 
man — jou and me, I refer specifically to guard dogs, known variously as "attadc, 
sentry, protection or security" dogs. 

Due to the lanipiage of section of Public Law 91-579 the guard dog does not 
qualify for protection under the Animal Welfare Act of 1970. Only certain anlnmlp 
intended for use in research, exhibition or for pets are covered. Surely, the law 
should be amended to Include guard doga — in fact, all "worliing" dogs. They 
should be accorded the same federally regulated protection in care, handling, 
housing, transporting as the other animals covered by the law. 

This exclusion may, indeed, be an understandable oversight Since the law 
went Into effect, the Increase in guard and attack dog training, leasing and supply 
business has been nothing short of spectacular. This Is due to the well-warranted 
need of protecdon of property (especially commercial property and Its chattels) 
from all types of theft, vandalism and arson in a society somewhat run amn<^. 

There is no central source of information as to the numbers of attack training, 
leasing and supply companies nor the nuinl)ers of dogs involved. A mere glance at 
the yellow pages of telephone books of big cities will give some slight Indication 
that this is a thriving, and undoubtedly, lucrative business. Certainly, more than 
100,000 such animals are in use. 

If the law Is amended and guard dog trainers, leasors and operators are re- 
quired to register and he licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U8DA, 
at least, vrill have a handle on the problem and "shady" operators can he broi^ht 
into conformity vrith its minimum standards. And not to be discounted, a valuable 
potential by-product : a decrease in the rising number of dog bites throughout the 
nation. In short, a partial sheathing of a sword. 

"The reason for concern is based on reports from animal welfare organizations 
and especially to the various sadistic, brutal methods of enhancing and inducing 
throughout the nation. Complaints range from improper housing, inadequate food, 
viciousness In these animals. In the latter connection, there have be«t nnmeroua 
reports of dogs being teased and tormented to the point of nn-natural rage and 
ferocity at the very sight of man. 

I can supply to this committee reports of some of the almost unspeakable 
methods used in training tbese dogs— some of them docile by nature — but pri- 
marily shepherds, dobermauR. 

"Fear and pain are the two basic tools attack trainers use," according to the 
distinguished animal behavlourtst scholar. Dr. Michael Fox, until recently with 
the Washington University, St. Louis, author of many scientific volumes and 
such popular books as "Understanding Tour Dog." "tnieir methods of severe 
punishment and intimidation should be outlawed because they are inhumane," 
he states. 

Cyril H. Moore, Jr., an assistant Attorney General in New York's Environ- 
mental Protection Administration, has been quoted as saying that attack dog 
trainers "Use cattle prods and they beat, starve and whip dogs Into submission." 

Barbar Austin of Manhattan's Dawn Animal Agency Is reported as saying : 

"Ton find dogs In these attack doe schools tied up in a row lunging at someone 
slapping them in the face with hnrlap sacks. Many of these schools are taming 
out raving maniacs. I know of doga that had to be destroyed after their so<alled 
training — because they had become too dangerous to handle safely." 

(Note the words "too dangerous.") 

This brings us to the particular concern of Dr. Alan Beck, Director of New 
York City's Bureau of Animal Affairs, as to the spectacular increase in the city's 
dogs bites of innocent men, women and children. A considerable number of these 
biters were trained to be vicious. 

In a letter to me (copy attached) Dr. Beck wrote i 

"The phenomenon of protection dogs Is rapidly increasing In size and serious- 
ness in most of our urban area. They pose dual problems as nncontrolled and 
potentially lethal weapons." 



Digilized-by-CjOOglC 



This Is no speculative opinion. The increase in the use of "trained attack dogs" 
ts cited as contributory to the rising rate of dog biting In New York City (40,000 
bites reported annuallj) in a l&-pase, well documented paper: "Dog Bites — An 
Unrecognized Epidemic" in the October, 1974 Issoe of the bulletin of the New 
York Aoadetnff of Medicine. It Is authored by Dr. Daris Harris, Associate Director 
of Mount Sinai Hospital ; Dr. Pascal James Imperato, First Deputy Commlc^oner, 
Department ol Health, New York City and Barry Oken, Research Fellow ot tbe 
DepHrtment of Health, New York City. 

Between 1965 and 1972, they point out, dog bites Increased 37 per cent. Nearly 
10 per cent of the dogs that have bitten people have received attack dog tralnli^. 
All of this coincides with the Increase of crime In the area and tlie use of guard 
dogs to control it 

Alarmed by the problem, New York has taken several st^)S to reduce dog bites 
Wliich will also provide certain protection of luckless animals trained to bite: 

Specific identification must be worn toy all guard or attack trained does and 
conspicuous warning signs must be posted wlterever the; are kept. 

Owners of dogs that have received such training must register with the N.T. 
Health Department. 

The N.Y. Health code now requires that all establishments engaged In guard 
or attacli dog training be open for Inspection by the HealtH Department and meet 
certain standards of caging and care. 

Dog trainers, as well as animal merchandisers, are required to take a course 
in animal care from the Health Department 

A giant step — but few, If any, other cities are so progressive In coping with a 
problem ttiat had reached horrendous proportions. For the other communities in 
the land, the only hope may be Federal regulations to bring attack and guard 
dog establishments into conformity with decent standards. 

We must bring an end to such locking episodes as reported in Jfeiosdav on 
August 29, 19T5 from Manorville, L.I. Under the byline of Bob Wacker, read the 
first two paragraphs : 

■Twelve gaunt, listless dogs, licensed to a pr<«>rietor <rf a guard dog service 
have been found chained to a dozen young pine trees here, and tlifl prt^rletor has 
been arrested and chained with "torturing and injuring" animals by starvation. 

■'The remains of a dog that had been dead two or three weeks were chained 
to a 13th free. 'They didn't even bury the poor thing,' said a Riverdale police 
officer Frank Romaniello. 'And Uie other 12 were Just starved. I have never seen 
anything like It.' " 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, I have a collection of cllf^^gs 
and lettpre from all over this land— from Texas, the West Coa*rt, to New England. 
They all tell of similar neglect and abuse — and frustration at no* being able to 
nail down the guard dog operatx>re ao their cases will stick in court 

I have seen some of this with my own eyes. But like any ™porter or humane 
Investigator. I find It a dangerous bustneas poking into places filled with dogs 
traintMi to bite, mutilate, or to kill. I wanted to find one that I knew — a genUe 
Rhepherd (she couldn't even bark or growl) — but I never found her. I have seen 
the tnicks Njieeding on their rounds. The sight is enougli to bring anger even to a 
leaden heart. 

One observer of cramp-caged dogs aboard such a truck ain>roached It. "They 
tore at the bars like they were Insane," he told me. Had they become psydioUe 
because of a nerve ■shattering substance fed tiiem? Not an Idle question. For a 
few years ago, ttoe Food and Drug Admlnisrtration removed from the shelves of 
n pet store here a male hormone sold to make do^ aggressive 1 Nothing stops my 
Imagination after years of seeing what my fellow man will do to his other feliow 
creatures. But I do not deal in emotion. Only facts. I can supply them. That is 
my business. And I expect to be writing articles on these animals in the near 
future. This committee, however, by Its responsible and enlightened outlook on 
nnimal w^fare needs no "pressure" from oul^ide from aroused public opinion. 
As. surely, it can see Ht&t this guard dog area Is one that needs supervision. 

Further, the committee nUght consider the possibility that the acquisition of 
guard dogs might Indeed be tied into Hie thefts of dogs that In some areas are 
on the upswing, despite the USDA and the Animal Welfare Act I raise the ques- 
tion of whether guard dogs, fighting ^oga and research dogs might not be con- 
nected in some instances. 

Overworked humane agents in most communities are unable to cope with the 
irregularities In the guard dog training and siq)ply business. I have available 
case histories of societies trying to enter certain properties and tdie various deter- 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



teats pot in their way. This Is the same story repearing Itself of the humane 
groups not having the time, money, mnscle, manpower to handle the cruelties 
perpetnated on antmals row fovered, In ceHadn categories of use, by the Animal 
Welfare Aot 

Among the national humane groups there is unanimity of OiiMnion that these 
guard and attack dngs ^ould he cwveied by the Act. In fact, all wotldng d<«s. 
I refer to the stated hopes of the Society for Animal Protective Tjegislation, the 
Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for AnlnwlK. Also USDA officials 
favor coverage of these animals. 

Thank you for printing this statement In the pnbll-shed hearrings. I i^tret that 
I was unable to attend the hearings to deliver it in person and to be available for 
qnestlons from the committee. My credentials to speak In tills field follow : 

Ann Cottrell Free; writer on animal welfare and environment for the Wash- 
ington Post, the Washington Star, the Wa^lngtonian Magazine, Defenders of 
Wildlife, North American Newspaper Alliance, the Birmingham News, the Balti- 
more Sun. Board member : The Rachel Catson Trust for the Living Environment 
and the Albert Schweitzer Fellowship. Former vice-presidettt. Education. Mont- 
gomery County Humane Society. Former corr. Xewsweefc, Qilcago Sun, N.i', 
Hamld Tribune. Recipient : Albert Schn-eitzer Medal and Willing Award, Dog 
Writers' Association of America. Anth>jr, "Forever the Wild Mare" (Dodd, Mead.) 

NOVEMBEB 24, 1975. 
Hon. LowEtL P. Weickbb, 
Chairman, SubcommAUee on the Environment, Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Oirlcsen Building, Washington, B.C. 
. Dkab Senator Weickebi I respectfully submit the following statement lor 
consideration and to be inserted in the record of the Hearings on the Animal 
Welfare Act of 1966, as amended, held November 20, 1975. 

My name Is Mary Eleanor Brademan. I am the Deputy Director of Airport 
Activities for the Washington Humane Society and have been a participant In 
the Civil Aeronautics Board Hearing Docket 26310. 

The taxpayer has a stake In this legislation. Directly or indirectly tie taxpayer 
pays for a major portion of animal research. Vast sums are spent on animal re- 
search for the benefit of mankind and surely every dollar must count. Animals 
EDrust not suffer and die before they have even been able to contribute to this 
research. Shipping by common carrier presently results in the suffering, ill-health 
and death of laboratory animals, caused by lack of in-transit care, Imnroper 
handling and improper packaging. Additional replacements require additional 
funds and research is delayed. The shipper must build into his prices the losses 
sustained In shipment. Mortality rates are built into the cost. At the current rate 
of fifteen dollars a guinea pig, the costs are gigantic. 

I have seen countless mice, rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, ferrets and 
primates improperly packaged, poorly handled, neglected at airline terminals and 
dead or dying before arrival at their destination. On July 17. 1974 (W/B 6716771 
I saw forty monkeys shipped from Florida to the National Institute of Health. As 
the result of lack of care in transit at airline terminals and inadequate packaging 
they were dead or dying. On June 27, 1973, the Washington Humane Society was 
called to National Airport to take eight hundred or more rats that had arrived via 
air freight. (AU^heny Airlines). Most were dead and deca.vinein the hot p«n. the 
live ones were eating the dead carcasses, and were euthanized. These shipments 
were from consignors who were familiar with their needs. 

Zoo animals are also usually paid for with taxpayer's mone.v. Their abuse In 
transportation by common carrier is caused by the same conditions and the results 
are the same. In both Instances, neither the zoo nor laboratory animal shippers 
or their consignees are spending personal funds hut rather the taxpayer's money. 
The taxpayers are already subsidizing some of the airlines to the tune of 68 mil- 
lion dollars In 1974 (CAB Report March 1975), why shouldn't the airlines give 
humane care to animals in their custody? 

Much of the suffering and abuse of animals by common carrier can be elimi- 
nated by the passage of this proposed legislation. 
Sincerely, 

Maby Eleanob Bbadeua^ (Mbs. B. A.). 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



113 

POBOOB UNIVEBSrTT, 

Office op the Db&it of Graduate School, 

Weit Lafayette, Ind., NovemMr 25, 1975. 
Hon. Philip A. Habt, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Senatok r On behalf ot Purdue University, I am pleased to submit 
comments on the Senate Billa referenced above. These Bills seek to amend the Act 
of August 24, 1966 (Pub. L. 89-544) as amended {Pub. L. 91-579) to assure 
humane treatment of certain animals, and for other purposes. 

Purdue Uuiversity is a L^nd Grant institution and is engaged in research In 
the area of biological sciences which requires the use of substantial numbers 
of animals in pursuit of one of its missions. Our University Animal Care Com- 
mittee has and continues to diligently monitor all phases of research involving 
animals from their acquisition to their ultimate disposition. It is our opinion 
that certain provisions in the three Senate Billa should be modified to prevent 
undue curbing of important and relevant research targeted to safeguarding the 
health of the people. 

Our comments deal with specific sections of the Senate Bills and are presented 
on the attached pages. 

We appreciate your consideration of these comments. 
Yours ttu^, 

Fm:nEBicK N, Andrews, 
Vice President for Research. 

S. 2070 (Jntboduced bt Me. Dole, Jplt 7, 1975, and Referbed to CoMMiTTEEa on 
Agriculture and Forestbt and Comuebce) 

Section 5(i). Intermediate handler 

We are concerned with regard to the deflnltion of the tenn "Intermediate 
handler." It is our opinion that the "intermediate handler" may be interpreted 
to Include more individuals and companies than is intended unless the term is 
deSued more precisely. 
Section 8. Recordkeeping — Intermediate handlers and carriers 

We urge a more precise definition of the term "intermediate handler." This 
action would preclude interpretation Of the Bill to include "Recordkeeping" by 
more individuals and companies than is Intended. 
Section 9. Standards 

The promulgation of standards to govern transportation in commerce of all 
classes of animals appears to be an assignment with gargantuan ramifications. 

It is our opinion that the definition of ". . . adequate veterinary care . . ." in 
transit could cause untoward confusion. Literal interpretation of the language 
of the Bill could require that a veterinarian accompany animal shipments from 
their point of origin to their destination. 
Section JO (6). Veterinary certification 

We object to the proposal that ". . . No animal . . .," shall be delivered . . ." 
unless ". . . the animal was sound and healthy." Veterinary inspection of indi- 
Tidnal animals In small animal shipments, that may number in the hundreds, 
would cause hardship upon such vendors, and would be of questionable value In 
relation to the increased cost of such animals to research facilities. 

We object to the requirement for veterinary certification that ". . . the animal 
was sound and healttiy . . ." We respectfully request that research facilities be 
exempted from the requirement. The request Is based upon the fact we must 
frequently purchase specific animal models. For Instance, animals with various 
types of sarcomas are required for cancer research studies. 
Section 10 (d) . Transportation charges 

We un;e that research facilities be exempted from provisions of paragraph 
(d). The requirements for supplying payment guarantees, as required by this 
paragraph, would Increase the cost of research efforts by significant amounts. We 
respectfully suggest the means to achieve the intent of tJils proposal are presently 
Included In P.L. 89-544, as amended. 



Digitized bvGoOglC 



Section 5(i). Intermediate handler 

We are concerned with regard 'to the definltioa of Qie term "intenDediate han- 
dler." It Is our opinion that the "intermediate handler'' may be Interpreted to 
io<4iide more individuals and companies than is intended unless the term is 
defined more firecifiel?. 
Section 8. Recordkeeping — Intermediate luimHers ani carriers 

We urge a more precise definition of the term "intermediate handler." Thia 
action would preclade interpretation of the Bill to include "Becordkeejdng'' b; 
more individuals ajid companiee than is intended. 
Section 9. Standards 

The promulgation of standards to gorem transportation In commerce of all 
classes of animals appears to be an assigmuMit with gairgantuau ramifications. 

It Is our opinion that the definition of ". . . adequate veterinary care . , ." 
tn transit conld cause untoward confusion. Literal inteipretatlon of tlie language 
of the Bill oould require ttiait a veterinarian accompany animal shipments from 
their ipoint of origin to tbeir destination. 
Section 10 (t). Veterinarp certification 

We object to ttie profnoBal iiiat ". . . No animal . . . ," diall be delivered . . . 
unless ". . . the animal was sound and healthy." Veterinary inflection of 
individual animals in small animal shipments, that may numl>er in the hundred,^, 
would cause hardship upon such vendors, and would be of questionable value in 
relation to the increased cost of such animals to researrfi facilities. 

We object to the Tequirement for veterinary certification that ". . . the animal 
was sound and healthy . . ." We respectfully request Uiat research facilities tie 
exempted from the requirement. The request is based upon tlie fact we must 
frequently purchase specific animal models. For io^^ance, animals with various 
tyipea of sarcomas are required for cancer research studies. 
Section 10(d). Trantpm-tation chargeg 

We urge that research facilities be esempted from provisions of paragrajrti 
(d). Hie requirements for sapplying payment guarantees, as required by tliis 
paragraph, would increase the cost of trese&rcii efforts by significant amounts. We 
respectfully surest the means to achieve the intent of this proposal are presently 
included tn P.L. S9~544, as amended. 



Section 10 Cb). Humane itandard* and veterinary certification 

The promulgation of «tandards tar the handling, care and trcetment of all 
animals shipped for whatever leason would unduly place constraints on the 
shipment of certain animals required for lesearch. Sudi research animals may 
require special temperature, caging, waiterlng, etc 

We object to the proposal that "• * ♦ No animal * ♦ •," shall be deliv- 
ered • • •" unless "" • • the animal was sound and healthy." Veterinary 
Inspection of individual andimals in small animal stdpments, that may number in 
the hundreds would cause hard^iiip upon such vendors; and would be of ques- 
tionable value In r^ation to tlie increased cost of such animals to research 
facilities. 

We object to the requirement for veterinary certJflcatlon that "• • • tie ani- 
mal was sound and healthy ■ • •" We reapectfuUy request thait research facili- 
ties be exempted from the requirement. The request is based upon the fact we 
must frequently purchase -speciflc animal modds. For instance, animals with 
IB types of sarcomas are required for cancer research studies. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



115 

Thb Univebsitt of Nebkaska Medical Cbnteb, 

C!OI.LEGE OF Phabmact, 
Omaha, Sebr., Hovemher 25, 1975. 
Hon. Phujp A. Habt, 
t5S R.S.OM.. WatMngton, D.O. 

Dbab Senator i This letter is being -written in an effort to have the tollowing 
comments registered regarding Senate Bill 8. 1941, which is entitled "Amlmat 
Welfare Act". My eoneema vrith this particular bill lie primarily in SeeUon 13, 
paragraph (b), which deals with standards regarding the transportation of ex- 
perimental animals. In this particular par^araph, it is stated that transportation 
of animals may be prohibited "unless the animal inyolved is accompanied by a 
certificate issued by a licensed Teterinarian certifying that such animal as de- 
livered to an intermediate handler or common carrier is sound, healthy, and in 
such condition that it can reasonably be expected to withstand the rigors of the 
intended transportation without adverse conseiiuence". My concern Ues in the 
nse of the terms "sound" and "healthy" in this contest, since they are certain 
types of experimental animals which could not be considered to be sound or 
healthy by definition. Jn this latter case I am referring to animals such as 
C57/BL/KsJ-db/db mice which are an inbred mutant species that is Inherently 
diabetic, or 129/BeJ-dy/dy mice, which are an inbred strain of dystrophic mice. 
I doubt that any licensed veterinarian wonld certify that these animals are sonnd' 
and healthy, although it could certainly be reasonably expected that they could 
withstand the rigors of transportation. There are also many experimental ani- 
mals which are shipped in a surgically pre-treated condition, such as the hyjio- 
physectomized rat, which is utilized in endocrine research. Therefore, I feel that 
the bill contains some wording that is extremely limi ting when one considers the 
necessity of the use of pniTnnla of this type in research. 

In order to avoid this problem with the definition of "sound" and "healthy", I 
would suggest that you replace these terms with the words "free from Infection 
or infestation". I think that this will guarantee that any animals that Is shipped' 
is in as sound and healthy a condition as would be possible for that animal, but 
that this substitutive wording would not prevent the shipment of many inbred 
or surgically prepared models that are currently in use in laboratory animal 
research. 

I hope that yon villi forward these comments to the senate committee that Is 
considering this bill and it is hoped that they may come up with some appropriate 
terms other than the words, "sound" and "healthy" which appear to be too defini- 
tive in some ways and yet too diffuse in other ways with regard to the definition- 
that is necessary in this particular statement in the bill. 
Sincerely, 

BoseaT W. Piepho, Ph. D. 
Coordinator of OKnical Education, 
Department of Clinical Education and Hervices. 

Nmiwich Phabmacai. Co., 

ReSBARCH AND DEVELOPUENT, 

Norwich, N.Y., December 1, 1975. 
Hion. Phiup a. Habt, 
253 RSOB, Washington. D.C. 

Deab Senatob; These OMmnents are filed on b^idf of the NonwlOh Phar- 
macal Company and Eaton Laboratories, Dlvislona of Morton-Norwich Products, 
Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of prescription and prc^rietary drugs. 
Various aspects of our Company's operations are subject to the provisions of the 
Animal Welfare Act. We are, therefore, interested in and would be affected by 
this proposed legislation. 

Prior to commenting on the specific sections of Oie proposed bill (8, 1941)- 
we find most objectionable, we feel impelled to make ithe following general ob- 
servations. The Intention of this proposed legislation to increase the protection 
afforded animals in their transportation and treatment is mo^ enviable and one 
which we moat fully agree. However, it is our impression that In the ardor of 
affording this additional protection the sponsors may have overlooked the realities 
of transporting and maintaining animals. 

Certainly the additional burdens placed on individuals governed by this pro- 
posed legislation will have an adverse economical effect. President Ford has 
repeatedly stated that legislation and regnlatLous that have an inflationary 



Digitized by Google 



116 

Impact on the economy slwuld be avoided, if at all possible. The wwt of imple- 
menting this legislation and tlie contemplated regulations will ultimately be borne 
by the cOTisumers reflected as higher retail prices. We only ask that the benefits 
afforded bp this proposed legislation be weighed carefully against Increased coeta 
that are sure to follow as a result of its implementation. 
Sec. i. Section 2(i). Intermediate Handler 

We are concerned with r^ard to the definition of the term "intermediate 
handler." It is onr opinion that the "Intermedlaitie handler" may be Interpreted 
to include mwre individuals and companies than is intended l>y the sponsors of 
the bill, unless the term Ls defined more precisely. In general, the hill defines whet 
an "intermediate handler" is not, rather than what it is. 
Sec. 10. Recordkeeping 

We believe that the present recordkeeping prorislons in the Act are adequate. 
The recordkeeping indicated for all warm-blooded animala, in'addltion to dofs 
and cats, by research facilities auay cflose undue liardsAlp to some researdi 
facilities and Increase the cost of research eOTorts by significant amounts. We 
urge that . . . "RcHearch facilities shall make and retain such records only witli 
resq>eot to the purchase, sale. tran«portation. Identification, and. previous i>wner- 
"hip of live dogs and cats " as pre'ientlv included in P L fi9-544 are adequate 
for research facilities to achieve the intent of *h s proposal 
Sec 10 Sectio Ji(6) Hu a e Standards for An male 

We object to the propo at that Such n andard may prohll.it the trans 

portation in c< mmerce of dogs ats and other le ignated animals that are less 
than el^t weeks of af^ nless the anin al involved s accompanied by a 

certificate ssued I v a lice laed veterinarian certifying that Many an mals 

are weaned and transported especially rodents I efore eight weeks of age 
\i'terinary nspect on and certification of Individ al animals In snail an mal 
shipments that may n mher In the hundreds vould ause hard'^h p upo such 
vendors and wo Id be a questloiable value in relation to tl e increa-sed cost of 
such animals to research facllltie« 

In conclusion, it is our belief that the above proposed amendments are not 
needed and that they should not be enacted. Furthermore, the regulations should 
only be changed when there is a demonstrated need for change, no such need 
has been demonstrated. 

We appreciate your consideration of these comments. 



Respectfully submitted. 



Ai.Aff W. Castellion, Ph. D., 

Chief, Pharmacology Section. 



Pabke, Davis & Co., 
Quality Control and Govebnment Regulations Division, 

Detroit, Mick., December S, 1915. 
Hon. Philip A. Hart, 
B53 RSOB, Washington, D.C. 

Deab Senator: Park, Davis & Company, a JlichiBan based corporation 
engaged in research and production of pharmnceuticnl and biological products 
requiring the use of laboratory animals, is an interested party with respect to 
Senate Bill S. 1941. a Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 8»-544, 80 
Stat. 350, August 24, 1966; P.L. 91-.ir», 84 Stat 1560, December 24, 1970). 
Accordingly, we wish to submit the following comments and suggestions. 

In general, we object to the broad phraseology jwed in the proposed amend- 
ment. JIuch of the language is confusing, and we feel it does not take Into account 
the unique problems experienced hy research facilities. In addition, Implementa- 
tion of this Bill would sharply increase the cost of obtaining research animals, 
thereby increasing expenditures Involved lu the development of a new drug 
product which In turn would increase the prices consumers must pay for the 
finished drug product. 

Our comments on specific sections of the Bill are as follows : 

section 4(81 (i) — INTEKMEDIATB HANDLER 

The definition of an "intermediate handler" is too broad and may cover more 
individuals and companies than intended. We feel a more restrictive definition 
of this term is required. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



We feel tbe "recordkeeping" requirement of Section 9 of tlie Bill, when viewed 
in connection with the hroad intermediate handler definition, is unnecessarily 
burdeneome and will tremendouslr increase the paperwork, manpower hours, 
and costs of all who deal or have contact with animals, with an eapeciall; 
heayy impact on research facilities. Tlierefore, we suggest that this provision 
be- deleted. 



This provision purports to proliihit tlie transportation of animals of les's than 
8 weeks of age unless the animal is certified by a veterinarian as tieiug "sound 
and healthy". 

We object to this requirement because it would require an enormous expendi- 
ture of time and money, especially by research Institutions and would be of 
questionable value. Moreover, we think that the requirement that the animal 
be certified by a veterinarian as being, "sound and healthy" is unreasonable 
and Impractical for research institutions, frequently these Institutions purchase 
animal models — animals bred with certain diseases— to complete accepted exfterl- 
mental and regulatory protocols. Clearly, these could not be certified as healthy. 
We feel, therefore, that an exemption for research facilities is warranted. 

We hope these comments will aid the Senate Committee in its determination, 
and that care will be taken in the final language of the proposed amendment to 
avoid development of rigid standards and definitions that would allow no flesi- 
bility to bio-medical researchers. 
Very truly yours, 

h. 51. LUECK, Ph.D., 

Vice President. 

Parke, Davis & Co., 

Qf ALITY COBTBOL AND GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS DlVIBlOK, 

Detroit, Mich., December 3, 1915. 
Ho'n. Philip A. Hart, 
253 RSOB. Washington, D.C. 

Deab iSenatob : In Tes|>on«e to the invitation titr written «)mment regardfnK 
Senate Bill 8. 207fr, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89-544, 80 Stat. 
.^50. August 24. 1966; P.L. 91-579, 84 Stat. 1560, December 24. 1970). Parke. 
Davis & Company, a corporation with laboratories in Detroit, Rochester, Ann 
Arbor, and Holland. Michigan, engaged in research and production of pharma- 
ceutical and biological products requiring the use of laJ»oratory animals, respect- 
fully submits the following comments : 

In general, we object to itbe broad language used In the proposed amendment. 
We feel that mudi of the language is confusing and that it tends to embrace more 
Individuals and companies than we believe was originally intended. Further, we 
feel that Senate Bill S. 2070 does not take into account the unique problems 
experienced by research facilities such as ourselves. 

Our specific comments are as follows ; 

Mi>- 



SECTIOW 8 RBCORDKEEPINO 

We think the "recordkeeping" requirement of the bill, when viewed in connec- 
tion with the broad "intermediate handler" definition, is unnecessarily burden- 
some and will tremendously increase paperwork ond manpower hours needed by 
all who deal, or have contact with, animale, with an especially heavy impact on 
research facilities. We suggest, therefore, that this provision be deleted. 

SECTION B STANniBD FOR TBAN SPORT ATION 

We feel that the term "adequate veterinary care" is undefined and needs clari- 
fication. Witliout «ncb clarification, we feel that this phraseology could be taken 
to require a veterinarian to accompany all animal shipments from their point of 
origin to their destination. Clearly, this practice could get to be quite costly. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



especially for research ioatitutloiis wbo receive ntunerooa fibiimients of animals 
each year. 

sEcnoir 10(b) — ^vktbeinabt cebtifioatioit 

This provision would require "veterinarian certification" for each animal 10 
days prior to delivery. The animal must be certified ae heing "sound and healthy". 

We object to the requirement that eacb andmai be Inspected U) daye prior to 
delivery because it would require an enormous expenditure of time and money, 
«specially by research in&tltnllons, and would be of questionable value. 

FurUier, we think that the requirement that the animal foe certified by a 
veterinarian as being "sound and healthy" is both unreasonable and impractical 
for research institutions. Frequently these institutions purchaise animal models — 
animals bred iwith certain diseasee— to complete accepted experimental and r^u- 
latory protocols. Oeaily, these could not be certified as healthy. We feeJ, there- 
fore, that an exemption for research facilities is warranted. 

BEOTIOX 10(d) TK&NSPOBTATION CSABOES 

' This provision would prohibit cash-on-dellvery (C.O.D.) animal shipments 
-unless the shipper guaranteed, in writing, to pay transportation charges both 
ways and boarding fees if the animals are not acceptable to the receiving par^. 
We appreciate the problem to which this provision addresses itself, but we feel 
that implementation of such a procedure would significantly increase the cost of 
research efforts. We. therefore, suggest that the licensing procedure set out In 
Section 7 of the Animal Welfare Act be utilized in this regard. 

Alternatively, we urge that animal shipments to research institutions foe ex- 
empted from the provisions of this section. 

We appreciate this opportunity to present e(Hnmentss and hope that eare will 
be taken in the final langaage of the proposed amendment to avoid development 
of rigid standards and definitions that wonld allow no fiesIblUty to bio-medical 
Tesearchers. 

Very truly yours, 

L. M. LuECK, Ph. D.. 

Vice President. 

Pabke, Davis ft Ck>., 

QtrALITT CONTBOL AND GOVEENMBNT Rbgttlations Divibioh, 

Detroit, Mich., December S, 1975. 
Hon, Philip A. Hart, 
2J3 RSOB, WaaMngton, B.C. 

Dear Senatob : Parlce, Davis & Company, a corporation with lalK>Ta't»>riea in 
Detroit, Bocbester and Ann Arbor, Uichlgan, is engaged in research and pro- 
duction of pharmaceutical and biological products requiring the use of laboratory 
animals. It is, therefore, an interested person with respect to Senate Bill S. 2430, 
a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act purportedly to assure humane treatment 
of certain animals, and for other purposes. That being the case, we wish to submit 
the following comments and suggestions. 

In general, we object to the broad phraseoltey used in the proposed amend- 
ment. We feel that much of the language is continuing, and that it fends to em- 
brace more individuals and companies than we believe was originally Intended 
by the sponsors of the Bill. Also, Senate Bill S. 2430 does not take into account 
the unique problems experienced by research facilities such as ourselves. It is 
our hope that care will be taken in the final language of the proposed amendment 
to avoid development of rigid standards that would allow no flexibility to bio- 
medical researchers. 

Our comments on specific sections of the bill are as follows: 

SECTION' (GI) IHTEBUEDIATE HANDLEB 

The definition of an "intermediate handler" is too broad, and we feel that a more 
restrictive definition of this term is required. 

Additionally, we think the "recordkeeping" requirement of Section 8 of the 
subject Bill, when viewed in connection with the broad "intermediate handler" 
definition, Is unnecessarily burdensome and will tremendously increase paper- 
work and manpower hours needed by all who deal or have contact with animals, 
with an especially heavy impact on research facilltiea We suggest, therefore, that 
this provi^on be deleted. 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



3ECT10S S ST^Jm-UU) l 

W» feel thAt the term "adequate reterimur care" is ontleQiied. and n«e 
■tedficab-Oii. WithooE soL-li rlarificatiun. we feei Cbat this pbraseolog? could b 
bken eo enquire a reteciimriaii to ai'i.'<:>mpaii? all animal ^ipmeats from tbeirl 
point of origin to their destinatioa. Clearly, this practice coulii get to be quil» 
cnsU;. especially for research institutions who receive numerous shipments rf 
"5 each year. 



sEcnos' 



Hbi- 



dis provision would require "veterinarian certification" Cor each animal 
days prior to deiiver;. The an'mal most be certified as being "^^oimd and hvotth;' 

We object CO the requirement that each animal be Inspected 10 ^y^ prior 
deiiTerT because it would retiuire an enormous espenditare of time and money, 
espeeiaUy by research instinitiuns. and would be of questionable value. 

Further, we ttiink that Che requirement that the Hnimal be certiliiHl by a 
Teterinarian as being "sound and healthy" is both unreasonable and imprac- 
ttmble for re^^earcb institutions. Freiiuently these lostitutiont; purchase animal 
models — animals bred with certain disease — tn complete accepted experimeulaft 
and regulatory protocols. Clearly, these could not be certified as healthy. Wi " 
therefore, that an exemption for research facilities is warranted. 

eECTio:^ iotd> — tbassfoktatids chabssb 

lUs provision would prohibit cash-on-detiTery (C.OJ>.) animal shipments 
unless the shipper guaranteed, in writing, Co pay traospoctatlou charges both 
ways and boaiding fees if the animals are not acceptable to the receivlns party. 
We appreciate the problem to which this provision addressee itself, but we ferf 
that imcdementation of such a procedure would significantly increase the cost 
ot research etfocts. We. therefore, stiggest that the licensing procedure set ouc 
fa 3eetioD 7 of the Animal Welfare Act be ntilUed in this regard. 

Alternatively, we nrge that animal shipmeots to ceseenA iastitutious tw g 
exempted from tlie profisioiis fit this sectiuD. 
We appreciate the oppoctumty to comment. 
Very truly yonrs, 

I* M. LcxcK. Ph.D.. 

Vie« PreHdent. 

o 



bvGoo^^lc 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



DisllizedbyGoOgle 



dbyCoogle 



DEPOSIT 

APR 16 1976 
BMIPPED 



DisilizedbyGoOgle 



A 


4.C 7312:9*-SS 

Imal wsttors tmptow 
Stanford umveral 

1 lllllllllll 


C-1 

lliniil; II II 




jiiinDiiinii 

3 6105 045 


nnH 

202 


Hi 11 

780 



h 



DATE DUE 1 1 


































































































^ 



STANFORD UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305-6004